Checkmk Reviews

We use it to monitor mainly Linux servers, including operating system metrics, processes, services, and so on. We also use scripting and monitoring logs.

It has helped with automation and faster monitoring of new nodes.

I like Checkmk's integration with the event management tool. It is easier to scale and administer, and it's really useful for us. 

Also, the licensing model is easier than previous tools like Nagios.

The alerting system in Checkmk is really useful for us, and it works properly. We don't have any major problems with the alerting system. It's okay for us.

The main challenge for us is that we're moving from Nagios to Checkmk, and we're still getting used to the new way of working. But basically, we're okay with it.

The difficult part was adapting from the old monitoring metrics to Checkmk and the way we provide information to other departments. 

Mainly, we've improved our monitoring system by working with Checkmk.

The interface could be simplified or improved because Checkmk provides a lot of information, but it depends on the information you need. Maybe it's too much information, depending on your use case. 

Normally, people who use this tool are technical users. They should have a high level of knowledge about the tool. It's true that it provides a lot of information, but it's useful information. So, we [as technical people] are okay with the interface.

Maybe we would like to work with AI intelligence to improve that way. And some kind of predictive monitoring, for example, and also with cloud AI-components.

We've been working with Checkmk for maybe five, six, even more years, but we had two environments. We have a legacy environment with an older version of Checkmk, and now we have a brand new, latest version of Checkmk. And this is what we are trying to integrate with the data lake.

We've been working with the latest version for the last three years, and we haven't had any major problems or issues with the solution. 

It's stable for us, more stable than Nagios.

We can scale if we need more services or more sites; there's no problem.

We didn't have many calls or issues open with the support department, but the few times we had to open a case, they worked fine.

Positive

We're starting to work with Elastic, and we would like to see the differences between Elastic and OpenText. We want to review the features of both tools and see what fits our needs. We're also evaluating other alternatives, but just focus on those two products, those two solutions.

We are starting to analyze and see the differences, but we don't have a decision yet. We need time to review it.

We work with different monitoring and event management solutions, and we want to integrate these metrics with Elastic or OpenText. We also want to get information from logs and traces. 

So we want to centralize and put all this information into a data lake and work with it. We work with tools like Nagios, Checkmk, and so on from a monitoring point of view. Also, tools like Netreo.

It is easy. For installation, it depends on our needs. For example, last week, we updated the system to a new version, and it took just one day to update several sites. 

For that update, there was just one person who handled it and took care of the maintenance of the solution. We have a team of five technicians working with Checkmk, but the updates only required one team member.

The integration capabilities are great. We have integrated Checkmk with ServiceNow's ITOM solution, and it works properly.

It saves time and money. Probably 50%, considering the license price, resources, and time.

For us, the pricing is cheaper than Nagios, even though they have increased the price this year.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.