Legacy application migration to cloud-native environments has become a critical priority for organizations seeking to modernize their IT infrastructure. This comprehensive guide explores how Konveyor, a CNCF sandbox project, provides a powerful solution for seamlessly migrating legacy applications to Kubernetes and cloud-native architectures. Whether you’re considering rehosting, replatforming, or completely refactoring your applications, Konveyor offers the tools and methodologies needed to make your migration journey successful.
What You’ll Learn:
- Understanding Konveyor’s core components
- Evaluating migration strategies (rehosting, replatforming, refactoring)
- Step-by-step migration process with Red Hat’s MTA 7.0
- Breaking down monoliths into microservices
- Real-world enterprise case studies
Why It Matters:
- Reduce operational costs by 30-70%
- Improve application performance and scalability
- Enable faster feature delivery and innovation
- Future-proof your business-critical applications
- Leverage cloud-native capabilities fully
Understanding Konveyor: Your Pathway to Cloud Migration
Konveyor is an open-source tool designed specifically to help organizations safely and predictably modernize their legacy applications to newer cloud-native technologies. Unlike traditional migration approaches that require deep expertise in both legacy systems and target platforms, Konveyor simplifies the process through automated analysis and guided migration paths.
Core Components of Konveyor
Application Inventory
Houses your organization’s portfolio of legacy applications, providing mechanisms to link them to their respective supported business services, define interdependencies, and use an extensible tagging model to add metadata.
Assessment Module
A questionnaire-based tool that evaluates the suitability of applications for modernization. This self-guided questionnaire identifies risks associated with the application and its compatibility with Kubernetes.
Analysis Module
Examines the application’s source code/binary and dependencies using predefined or custom rules. It generates a report listing issues that need addressing for Kubernetes migration and provides effort estimation.
How Konveyor Works
Input your application’s source code (works with any language that has a language server)
Konveyor analyzes the code and identifies migration challenges
The tool outputs exact steps needed to migrate to Kubernetes
Developers follow the step-by-step process to complete the migration
This systematic approach eliminates the need to become an expert in the legacy application before migration, making the process more accessible and less intimidating for development teams.
Red Hat’s Migration Toolkit for Applications (MTA) 7.0
Red Hat’s Migration Toolkit for Applications (MTA) 7.0, formerly known as Windup, is a key component in the Konveyor ecosystem. It offers enhanced capabilities specifically designed for migrating legacy applications to modern platforms like JBoss EAP and OpenShift.
Key Features of MTA 7.0
- New application inventory and assessment modules for managing, classifying, and tagging applications while assessing their suitability for container deployment
- Full integration with source code and binary repositories to automate application retrieval for analysis
- Improved analysis capabilities with new analysis modes, including source and dependency modes
- Enhanced Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) powered by Red Hat Single Sign-On
- Administration perspective for tool-wide configuration management
- Support for Red Hat OpenShift on AWS (ROSA) and Azure Red Hat OpenShift (ARO)
Supported Migration Paths
Third-party enterprise application servers (like Oracle WebLogic Server) to JBoss EAP
JBoss EAP version upgrades to the latest release
Containerization assessments for deployment on Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform
Migration Strategies: Choosing the Right Approach
When migrating legacy applications to the cloud, organizations typically choose from three main approaches. Each strategy offers different benefits and challenges, and the right choice depends on your specific business needs, application complexity, and modernization goals.
Rehosting (Lift and Shift)
Moving applications from on-premises infrastructure to a cloud platform without significantly altering their structure or code.
Advantages:
- Rapid migration process
- Minimal disruption to existing systems
- Lower migration costs
- Can serve as a temporary solution while planning more comprehensive modernization
Disadvantages:
- Limited utilization of cloud-native capabilities
- Potential for higher long-term operational costs
- May perpetuate existing performance issues
Replatforming (Lift, Tinker, and Shift)
Moving applications to the cloud and making small adjustments to their architecture to improve performance and scalability.
Advantages:
- Cost-efficient approach that doesn’t require major development work
- Allows starting small and scaling as needed
- Enables applications to leverage some cloud-native functionality
- Improves performance through optimization for cloud-native features
- Increases availability through distributed environments
Disadvantages:
- Higher initial costs and effort compared to rehosting
- Increased complexity requiring thorough understanding of both cloud environment and existing application
- Potential for service disruptions during migration
Refactoring (Rearchitecting)
Significantly redesigning and rewriting applications to fully leverage cloud-native capabilities, often transforming monolithic applications into microservices.
Advantages:
- Long-term cost savings through optimized resource utilization
- Better adaptation to changing requirements
- Increased resilience through decoupled components
- Improved scalability and performance
Disadvantages:
- Highest upfront costs among the three approaches
- Longest migration timeline
- Potential for significant disruptions to existing workflows and integrations
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Replatforming vs. Rearchitecting
When deciding between replatforming and rearchitecting (refactoring), organizations must consider various factors including costs, benefits, timeline, and strategic importance of the application.
Replatforming Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs:
- Licensing for new platform technologies
- Infrastructure setup and configuration
- Staff training on new platform features
- Temporary performance impacts during migration
Benefits:
- 30-50% reduction in long-term operational costs through cloud optimization
- Improved availability (typically 99.9% or higher)
- Better security through modern platform features
- Moderate performance improvements without complete redesign
Rearchitecting Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs:
- Significant development resources for redesign
- Extended timeline (typically 2-3x longer than replatforming)
- Higher risk of introducing new bugs or issues
- Potential business disruption during transition
Benefits:
- 50-70% reduction in long-term operational costs through optimized architecture
- Maximum flexibility and scalability
- Full utilization of cloud-native features
- Improved developer productivity and innovation velocity
The decision ultimately depends on business priorities, available resources, and the strategic importance of the application. For mission-critical applications with long expected lifespans, rearchitecting often provides better long-term ROI despite higher initial costs.
Monolith to Microservices Migration with Konveyor
One of the most common migration patterns is transforming monolithic applications into microservices architectures. Konveyor facilitates this process through structured analysis and guided migration.
Migration Approaches
Complete Rewrite
The entire codebase is refactored at once. This approach works best for smaller codebases with well-defined modules that can be easily separated.
Strangler Application Pattern
The application is refactored incrementally. New features are developed as distinct services while crucial features are gradually extracted from the monolith. This approach is ideal for large, complex architectures that need continuous feature delivery.
Code Snippet: Implementing the Strangler Pattern
@RestController
public class StranglerFacadeController {
private final MonolithService monolithService;
private final NewMicroserviceClient microserviceClient;
private final FeatureFlagService featureFlags;
@GetMapping("/api/resource/{id}")
public ResponseEntity getResource(@PathVariable String id) {
if (featureFlags.isEnabled("use-new-microservice-for-resource")) {
try {
return ResponseEntity.ok(microserviceClient.getResource(id));
} catch (Exception e) {
// Fallback to monolith if microservice fails
return ResponseEntity.ok(monolithService.getResource(id));
}
} else {
return ResponseEntity.ok(monolithService.getResource(id));
}
}
}
This pattern creates a facade around the monolithic application that intercepts requests and routes them to either the legacy code or new microservices. It allows for gradual migration while maintaining system stability and reducing risk.
Prioritizing Features for Extraction
When using the Strangler Pattern, it’s crucial to prioritize which features to extract first. Konveyor’s analysis helps identify candidates based on:
- Features that will accelerate further development when extracted
- Components causing performance, scalability, or stability issues
- Services that enable the extraction of other services
Case Studies: Enterprises Using OpenShift Virtualization
Several major enterprises have successfully leveraged OpenShift Virtualization for their migration journeys. These real-world examples demonstrate the tangible benefits of a well-executed migration strategy.
Cisco
Cisco developed its Lightweight Application Environment (LAE) running on Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform to accelerate IT product implementation.
Results:
- Project provisioning time reduced from three months to minutes
- Increased developer productivity and innovation
- Faster delivery of products and services to customers
- Reduced pressure on limited IT resources
Porsche Informatik
As an IT service provider for Volkswagen Automotive Group, Porsche Informatik adopted OpenShift technology to create a private cloud container environment.
Results:
- Developers gained self-service capabilities
- Improved team collaboration across the organization
- Accelerated application development to compete in the fast-paced automotive market
Lenovo
Lenovo undertook digital transformation using Red Hat OpenShift to meet evolving business requirements.
Results:
- Improved productivity through automation
- Decreased system deployment time
- Enhanced cloud capabilities for application development
- Better positioned to respond to market changes quickly
Amazon Prime Video
While not specifically using OpenShift, Amazon’s migration from monolith to microservices demonstrates the potential benefits:
- Resolved issues that had caused 35 major disruptions between 2010-2018
- Achieved zero downtime
- Improved service latency by 30%
- Enhanced system capacity to handle 100,000 transactions per second
Pain Points in Java-to-Kubernetes Migrations
Migrating Java applications to Kubernetes presents several specific challenges that organizations must address for successful migration.
Dependency Conflicts
Java applications often have complex dependency trees that can cause conflicts when containerized. Common issues include:
- Version conflicts between application dependencies and container requirements
- Classpath issues in containerized environments
- Library compatibility problems across different JVM versions
Legacy System Compatibility
Many Java applications integrate with legacy systems or third-party tools that may not be compatible with containerized environments:
- Legacy databases with connection methods incompatible with Kubernetes networking
- Third-party tools lacking Kubernetes-native versions
- Stateful applications requiring persistent storage
Code Snippet: Resolving Dependency Conflicts in Kubernetes
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
name: java-app
spec:
replicas: 3
selector:
matchLabels:
app: java-app
template:
metadata:
labels:
app: java-app
spec:
containers:
- name: java-app
image: myregistry/java-app:latest
env:
- name: JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS
value: "-XX:+UseContainerSupport -XX:MaxRAMPercentage=75.0"
resources:
requests:
memory: "512Mi"
cpu: "500m"
limits:
memory: "1Gi"
cpu: "1000m"
volumeMounts:
- name: config-volume
mountPath: /app/config
volumes:
- name: config-volume
configMap:
name: java-app-config
This configuration helps manage Java memory usage in containers and separates configuration from code, addressing common dependency issues.
FAQ: Legacy App Cloud Migration with Konveyor
What is Konveyor and how does it help with legacy application migration?
Konveyor is a CNCF sandbox project designed to help organizations modernize their legacy applications to cloud-native technologies. It analyzes application source code and provides step-by-step guidance for migrating to Kubernetes. The tool eliminates the need to become an expert in the legacy application before migration, making the process more accessible and reducing migration risks.
What migration strategies does Konveyor support?
Konveyor supports multiple migration strategies including rehosting (lift and shift), replatforming (lift, tinker, and shift), and refactoring (rearchitecting). It’s particularly effective for the strangler pattern approach, where applications are incrementally modernized by gradually replacing components with microservices while maintaining system functionality.
How does Red Hat’s Migration Toolkit for Applications (MTA) relate to Konveyor?
Red Hat’s Migration Toolkit for Applications (MTA) is a key component within the Konveyor ecosystem. MTA 7.0 provides comprehensive tools for assessing, analyzing, and migrating applications to modern platforms like JBoss EAP and OpenShift. It includes features such as application inventory management, source code analysis, and effort estimation for migration projects.
What are the main challenges when migrating Java applications to Kubernetes?
The main challenges include dependency conflicts between application libraries and container requirements, compatibility issues with legacy systems and third-party tools, persistent storage management for stateful applications, and networking complexities. Additionally, organizations often struggle with refactoring monolithic Java applications into microservices while maintaining business functionality. Konveyor helps address these challenges through detailed analysis and guided migration paths.
Conclusion: Embracing Cloud-Native with Confidence
Migrating legacy applications to cloud-native environments is a complex but necessary journey for organizations looking to remain competitive in today’s digital landscape. Konveyor provides a comprehensive toolkit to make this transition smoother, more predictable, and ultimately more successful.
By leveraging the structured approach offered by Konveyor and Red Hat’s MTA 7.0, organizations can systematically assess, analyze, and migrate their applications while minimizing risk and maximizing ROI. The choice between rehosting, replatforming, or refactoring should be guided by your business objectives, application complexity, and long-term strategy.
As demonstrated by enterprise success stories like Cisco, Porsche Informatik, and Lenovo, the benefits of well-executed cloud migration extend far beyond cost savings—enabling faster innovation, improved scalability, and enhanced competitive advantage in an increasingly cloud-native world.
Key Takeaways:
- Start with a thorough assessment of your application portfolio using Konveyor’s analysis tools
- Choose the appropriate migration strategy based on business priorities and application characteristics
- Address specific technical challenges such as dependency conflicts and legacy system integration
- Consider using the Strangler Pattern for incremental migration of complex monolithic applications
- Leverage Red Hat’s MTA 7.0 for enhanced analysis and guided migration paths