DX Unified Infrastructure Management Reviews

The product is easy to configure. Simplicity is the most valuable asset of CA UIM.

Monitoring has been easy and streamlined. Its ability to integrate with CA SDM and its capability to receive SNMP traps from other tools, makes it simple to integrate.

Improvements could be made to the reporting and analytics features. The OOB report templates and analytics can be improved.

I have used it for 3 years.

There were no stability issues. It is a very stable product with agents not failing that often.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support has been good.

Initial setup was straightforward. For someone with experience of any monitoring tool, read the manual once and implementation is pretty easy.

I found the product to be cost effective and licensing is not complex.

Go ahead and implement it. Keep it simple in a phased manner. Set expectations correctly. (This is not a synthetic or real user monitoring tool.)

We use this solution for monitoring our infrastructure environment; servers, storage, database, and applications. This is an infrastructure monitoring tool. I'm a solutions consultant and we are customers of DX. 

The value of UIM is that we are not only monitoring the infrastructure asset but also monitoring it as an IT service. 

I would like to have the option to monitor via mobile phone so it would be helpful if DX would develop a mobile application. I'd like to see a single dashboard and automation implemented as part of the solution.

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

The environment around UIM is sometimes complex and can cause some instability. We have good support to resolve issues when this happens. 

In terms of the knowledge base of the technical staff, they are average. 

Positive

SolarWinds and ManageEngine are both good tools with good technology in this sphere but for our purposes they are unlikely to be able to scale and provide the information we need in our environment. It might work for other companies that have a different environment from ours. It's difficult to compare these solutions head to head because it all depends on an environment's requirements.

The initial setup is easy. Deployment time depends on the number of devices to be monitored and the metrics that are going to be collected. We have 15 users and the solution is used on a daily basis. 

Licensing costs are reasonable and affordable. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

The most valuable features are, I would say, the flexibility and the performance. It's easier to use and to configure.

It enables us to use multiple solutions in one software package.

It needs more report capabilities; things that make it easier to find them. It needs a central, global, point of view for inventory. Currently we have to get it piece by piece.

The stability is good. Many releases every year. It's something which is quite stable and pro-rating well.

It's very scalable. We need scalability. We are pro-rating and putting it in multiple sites.

I think we use it about once a month. I think they are responsive, although I don't use it directly.

We were using OmniVision. We switched because CA Unified Infrastructure Management integrated multiple features.

When selecting a vendor I would say the most important criteria are a history in infrastructure domain and credibility.

I would advise to start from a blank slate and not to try to make it from another solution.

It provides us with great detailed information that can be easily reported and delivered to customers. The mobile app takes it to the next level. You can have the customer log in from anywhere and access the data.

We can deliver quality information to the customer, but then also add or bill revenue to solve those issues that were identified through UIM. It seems like the direction moving forward is not an infrastructure manager and this component and that component. UIM brings it more together, but simplification would be good.

It takes a bit of getting used to with all the different acronyms and terminology. It's also not the easiest tool to use.

We've had issues from the get go, but they have gotten better since we upgraded 8.31. Through implementation, we discovered that the company that architected the solution did it incorrectly. So four months in, the install had to be redone and reconfigured to a tiered architecture. We have had a couple issues that support has never seen before, but we were able to work through it. I think we are on a pretty good path now.

It's great. We're considering large scaling, but at this point we have a vision to be much larger and we think we can utilize that functionality.

We've had some good and we've had some bad technical support. It seems like they are very quick to deliver just a .pdf document that says, "Try this." Once you try that, you get higher upper-level support. They really know the product and they're always willing to help.

The initial setup is pretty complex. We had their preferred vendor do the install and there were some issues from the get go. It would have been better to have an initial evaluation, where they could have learned the environment just a little bit for a day or two and then apply that to their standard practice. We were delayed because certain network things were not disclosed and different requirements. That kind of drew things out for a bit.

You can get some good information from UIM. Just make sure to ask a lot of questions along the way and make sure that you have a good understanding of your business before you actually move into implementation.

This product is very flexible for the administrator. We can do whatever we want. It is easily customizable and upgradable.

We are using this product for all my customers and internal stakeholders. We did the following:

• Enabled a complete monitoring solution for their devices
• Integrated a ticketing system with an in-house tool
• Made customized report generation

• Alarm Management
• Alarm Correlation
• Jaspersoft reports

We have been using the solution for six years.

We had some issues with stability.

We encountered scalability issues in some areas such as bandwidth monitoring.

The technical support is very good from Europe and Australia, compared to the Indian support office.

The setup is very straightforward and flexible.

The pricing and licensing is acceptable. This is a very good product for small and medium size organizations.

We evaluated BMC and ManageEngine IT360.

Go ahead and choose this product.

• Scalable monitoring
• Integration of all monitoring on one tool.
• Simplicity on creating dashboards.

Optimizes delivery of managed IT services with CA Nimsoft Monitor.

Implementations, operations and technology departments are benefiting most from this tool.

3 years

Yes, at the first time of implementation, we encountered many issues with the tool, all due to a wrong configuration of the disks on database server.

Yes, it was unstable for couple months due to the main component that inserts the QoS data on Nimsoft database.

No

On scale from 1-5 (1=worst, 5=best), 4.

On scale from 1-5 (1=worst, 5=best), 4.

Yes, the main reason for change were high support costs and a difficult management tool.

It was complex, due to the configuration that we already had with another tool, implementing everything again took us longer than planned; it really is a difficult tool to configure, specifically in our infrastructure.

Vendor Team, the provider level is poor, finally was configured by a CA Engineer.

CopperEgg, Splunk.

Discuss whether it is feasible to do so through this tool, because the administration is complex, I recommend that due to the integrations with network monitoring, servers, SAN, VMware, etc., it's worth buying.

What's most valuable to us is the breadth of technologies for which it provides monitoring. We have a large catalogue and different types of systems and apps we need to monitor.

It's allowed us to get better coverage with our monitoring and to consolidate all monitoring into one solution.

It needs even correlation. We are looking to consolidate into UIM over time, but one of the biggest discrepancies is that UIM does not have even correlation amongst its features.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We have had very few issues even without anyone dedicated to managing it.

The scalability has been good. We take extreme advantage of polling and monitoring in multiple data centers as our footprint has gotten bigger. The only concern is with the database, but they have improved controlling data retention.

Technical support is OK. It varies depending on issues. Config support is good, but getting bugs fixed from support case through completion has sometimes been difficult.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We had done a comparison and narrowed it down to UIM. For the types of tech we wanted to support, it was a better fit.

It comes down to identifying what you need out of the system. Make sure it's good out of the box and try to align your software selection and the priorities of your business.