Data silos are often painted as the bane of modern IT. Countless blogs and whitepapers warn against fragmentation and the inefficiencies it breeds. Yet in practice, silos are not only inevitable, they are often essential. Most enterprises rely on a mix of databases to serve very different needs: finance on Oracle, customer-facing apps on MySQL, analytics on PostgreSQL. Each system is designed for its own workload, its own level of resilience, and its own business context.

That diversity should not be seen as a weakness. In fact, it can be a strength. Look at the Middle East: by making itself home to talent from across the globe, it has only gone from strength to strength. Similarly, having multiple databases creates an environment where the best tool can be applied to the job at hand. The real challenge then isn’t whether silos exist. It’s how to manage them without drowning in complexity.

The True Cause (and Cost) of Complexity

Ask any database administrator (DBA) what happens when an application slows down, and the answer is rarely straightforward. One moment, they’re fielding complaints from customer support about delayed transactions. The next, they’re trying to make sense of half a dozen monitoring dashboards, each tied to a different database engine, each with its own alerts, logins, and quirks. It’s a juggling act that leaves little time to step back and understand the bigger picture.

This is the hidden cost of tool sprawl. Monitoring exists, but it is fragmented. A spike in one dashboard might trigger alarms, only for the DBA to discover that the real bottleneck sits elsewhere. Time is lost switching between tools. Alerts get duplicated across systems. Teams fall into firefighting mode, scrambling to patch symptoms rather than address causes.

The numbers back this up. According to the 2025 SolarWinds IT Trends Report, nearly two-thirds (64%) of surveyed IT professionals spend between 11% and 30% of their total IT budgets just addressing issues and service disruptions. Even more striking, 10% of teams say they spend more than half their time resolving critical issues, leaving little bandwidth for innovation, automation, or process improvement. These aren’t signs of underinvestment. They point to misaligned investment! Resources are being diverted into too many tools without the cohesion to make them effective.

For DBAs on the ground, this is more than an abstract budgetary concern. It’s the frustration of midnight alerts that lead to dead ends, of performance reviews spent explaining why downtime wasn’t spotted sooner, of knowing that the right signal was buried in the noise all along.

From Accumulation to Alignment

There is a different way forward, one that shifts the conversation from accumulation to alignment. Instead of treating each database as an island with its own monitoring tools, organisations are beginning to centralise performance visibility across platforms. This is the promise of cross-platform database performance monitoring.

Think of it as a control tower for databases. Rather than switching between multiple dashboards, DBAs can see everything in one place. Whether the performance issue is in a cloud-hosted PostgreSQL instance or an on-premises Oracle database, the signal appears in the same interface. It is no longer about chasing alerts across different screens but about spotting patterns, pinpointing bottlenecks, and resolving them before they escalate.

For IT managers, this means fewer blind spots and faster mean time to resolution. For DBAs, it means less context switching, fewer late nights in reactive mode, and more space to focus on preventative tuning. For the business, it means applications that run smoothly, customers who remain satisfied, and teams that spend more time on innovation than on crisis response.

A More Nuanced Approach to DB Health Monitoring

But unification alone is not enough. The way performance is measured is equally critical. Traditional tools often focus on server health, monitoring metrics like CPU consumption, memory usage, or storage utilisation. These numbers look impressive on dashboards, but they do not always tell the full story.

A DBA might recall a time when a database was showing plenty of free CPU, yet customer queries still lagged. Or when memory was stable, but transactions slowed to a crawl. What matters most is not how busy the database looks, but how long users are waiting for their queries to complete.

That’s why response-time or wait-time analysis is gaining traction. Instead of treating every spike as an equal emergency, this approach focuses attention where it truly matters: the bottlenecks that directly affect user experience. By analysing where queries spend the most time waiting, DBAs can prioritise the fixes that deliver the biggest improvements.

It’s a shift from noise to signals, from reacting to every spike to understanding which issues will make the greatest impact if resolved. And crucially, it’s a shift that restores agency to the DBA, replacing constant firefighting with strategic decision-making.

Simplification as Strategy

Enterprises cannot avoid database diversity. Nor should they want to. Just as a diverse workforce can drive innovation and resilience, a diverse set of databases allows businesses to harness the right engine for the right task. What can change is how this diversity is managed.

Cross-platform monitoring offers a way to bring order to complexity. It aligns rather than accumulates. It enables DBAs to move from reactive firefighting to proactive optimisation. And it transforms the experience of IT teams who, instead of being trapped in tool sprawl, can finally act with clarity and speed.

In the end, data silos may be inevitable. But wasted time, duplication of effort, and frustrated DBAs are not. The future of database performance lies in alignment, not accumulation. The sooner organisations make that shift, the more resilient and innovative they will become.

By Kevin Kline, Database Evangelist at SolarWinds

Related post

View all