IBM Turbonomic Reviews

Smart Analytics to determine environment efficiency.

Helped to “right size” productions server environment. We now can do more with less.

Dashboard view could be improved.

3 years.

No issues with deployment.

Had 1 issue during a service pack that required me to redeploy and lose all previous history.

No issues with scalability.

On a scale of 1-10 I would say 8.

On a scale of 1-10 I would say 8.

VCOPS by vmware. Switched because Vmturbo was able to give us the reporting, planning, and migrations more easily and at a huge savings.

The initial setup was straightforward. You deploy an appliance, give it the normal basic configs (IP, Subnet, Name) then wait a few hours and you start having data to act on.

In-house.

ROI was 3 months. Could have been less if we would have acted on the recommendations earlier.

VCOPS, Veeam, Solarwinds.

Test the product give it a few days try it. You will see that it is well worth the investment.

With this platform we have automated our virtualization management and we are providing performance to our Apps when they needs it and saving CAPEX/ OPEX.

we only do investments in new hardwarie when the life cycle is ending or when Turbonomic have been a right sizing.

CAPEX and Management / sizing (OPEX).

We implemented Turbonomic this in March 2016.

We have mix of virtualization infrastructure. We have Hyper-V 2012 R2, vSphere 5.1 / 5.5 and 6.p, XenServer 6.02 / 7.0. Only with Hyper-V we have had a little issue for Windows Server configuration.

We have issues only when we upgrade the product, example in 5.7 we have issues with HyperV and VMM.

No issues.

7

9/10

SCOM and vRealize.

Within two weeks we were collecting metrics and watching how it was working. In a month is enough to do right recommendation for Turbonomic.

we Didn't implement with a vendor. We did alone only with Turbonomic support. It was very easy this deploy

In 9 months.

There is a balance of pricing between others software.

We used vRealize but it only works with VMware and that only works with thresholds. We didn't save the OPEX and we didn't solve the issues.

With Turbonomic Operations Manager automated all environment virtualization infrastructure (Hyper-V, vSphere, XenServer) with one unique management console. We save our CAPEX working with a plan inside of Operations Manager when we change hardware by lifecycle or when we have new projects, we have a capacity planning with that.

The most valuable features are automation and the single console to manage my virtual environment. Another good feature is that the alerts are in English, so my management team can address issues when I am out of the office.

The biggest improvement for us has been we have been more proactive when dealing with issues. We can even head things off before they cause any outages.

The biggest issue that I ever had was that the old interface was buggy sometimes. It doesn't always refresh without me logging off and on.

We have been using this solution for two years.

There were no issues during deployment. We had it up and running within five minutes.

I had issues once with the MySQL database. It was dealt with immediately.

We have not added any additional hosts.

Customer service has been great and anytime that I needed anything, they responded within a few minutes.

Technical support has been great. They have fixed any little bugs that I ran across.

We evaluated several different products and decided on Turbonomic for the ease of use and the amount of data we have been able to get out of the software.

The setup was straightforward. We were up and running within five minutes and pulling data.

The setup was done in-house.

The return on investment for us has not been on the monetary side. It has been helpful in being able to report better to the executives on the hardware and servers. They are able to see where we need to make improvements.

Licensing is pretty straightforward. It is similar to the VM model pricing per socket.

We looked at SolarWinds and vCOps. They were not has easy to use compared to Turbonomic.

I have used tons of software that has had a huge learning curve. Turbonomic is easy to use, but has the ability to provide much more complex data and planning for projects and growth.

Today we have found the forecasting of the environment and optimization the most beneficial. 

The automation of VMotion allows us to avoid over utilized memory and CPU on our Hosts.  Turbonomic also addresses the issue of I/O on our network something that has been a concern at times in the past.

The graphical interface could be better.

We began looking at this solution about a year ago and after Proof of Concept finally implemented a few months back.

Yes

Obviously, automation has been the most valuable feature - it's what initially attracted us and likely our main reason for purchase. However, its reporting and planning features are also very useful and contribute greatly to ROI.

Not having to regularly monitor our VM environments' resources has been a definite improvement over our previous time-intensive and often reactive processes.

Built-in, context-sensitive 'Help' would be useful at times, instead of having to search through the User Guide or Community for assistance - or just for those times when you're curious about the function of a particular option/feature.

We've had Turbonomic deployed for about 7 months now - plus the initial trial period.

Deployment was very straightforward. Transition from trial to fully licensed was just as simple.

Turbonomic has been very stable. Honestly, forget it's even running... until we need to look at a report or have growth/expansion plans for our environment.

Scalability has not been an issue. In fact, we included some additional socket licenses in our initial acquisition as we anticipated adding additional physical hosts to our environment.

Their customer service is top notch - quick to respond and very helpful. Plus, with the Green Circle Community there is the added bonus of a support group (of sorts).

I cannot speak to their technical support, as we've really not had any issues, and initial implementation was a breeze.

Other than manually monitoring and manipulating resources, DRS (which really doesn't even compare) is the closest "solution" we previously used.

Reasons for switching? Real automation, forecasting, and reporting.

As previously stated, setup was very straightforward: Deploy VM, configure connections and targets, and Automate!

We worked directly with Turbonomic - although it was called VMTurbo at the time. Obviously, their expertise was second to none.

ROI can sometimes be quite subjective. However, with Turbonomic it’s genuinely evident from the get-go. First, the automation working toward maximum
optimization, efficiency, and uptime. Second, the capacity and future planning capabilities offer the ability to generate the "what-if" scenarios using your own current environment as the model to build on.

Their per-socket perpetual licensing works very well for us. Pricing was aggressive, as compared to other options we had.

Planning a projection and right sizing capabilities

Used it during a ESX host refresh project to calculate how many hosts we would need to accommodate our growing production environment over the next 2 years. We reduced from 20 ESX hosts to 8 large hosts saving on VMware licensing costs as well as server hardware maintenance

Reports could be more versatile.

Since Dec 2016

No

No

No

Fantastic! 10/10. Engineers are responsive and very knowledgeable

No

Straightforward

Through our Business Partners. They learnt as they went but did a good job overall

N/A

N/A

N/A

Great product and we use it extensively, from setting up VMturbo to load balance our VM's across a cluster, implementing right sizing recommendations, policy rules, memory/storage and CPU trends and plans for future projections in order to determine how we can reduce our hardware and licensing footprints.

I'm primarily using Turbo for rightsizing VMs and to prove to application owners that the software vendor's system requirements for reserving huge amounts of resources aren't necessary.

With VMware's DRS aggressiveness turned down and allowing Turbo to manage the load, we now have a perfectly balanced load across our clustered hosts. These could otherwise easily be off by as much as 30-40%, even on the very aggressive settings in VMware before Turbo.

The reporting module has very big potential, but really lacks predefined reports for all kinds of purposes. I often find that the report I need doesn't exist, even though I know the data for it is available.

One and a half years.

No issues. Even upgraded to the new CentOS appliance and went through backup and restore of the database without any issues along the way.

No.

It's best used in a clustered environment, and a bit cumbersome to maneuver around in when installed in a single host environment.

Excellent!

Excellent!

I have had several WebEx sessions where their techs very professionally addressed some questions or issues I had.

It has saved us from purchasing new hardware in four regional offices and had us extend the service for two years, instead of buying new servers (HPE Gen8 and Gen9 servers running on fifth year). It has easily returned the investment we made in purchasing Turbo.

Migration planning, VM rightsIzing reports, performance assurance dashboards, workload placement rules and planning.

Helps us rightsize workloads, highlight bottlenecks and effectively plan for capacity.

Can't wait for the new GUI (which is due soon) as the old interface can be difficult to navigate.

Two years.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Really good, all the account management I've spoken to understand their product and how we can improve and progress our environment.

Also really good. All the support staff I've spoken to understand their product and what we're trying to achieve.

No.

Very striaghtforward.

In-house.

No exact figure, but the aim is to extend the lifespan of our hypervisor host before adding capacity.

In order to get the most out of the product cost, you need to drive the rightsizing of workloads. Trust in what it recommends.

No.

Nope.