NETSCOUT nGeniusONE Reviews

We are a telco company and we are using nGeniusONE to do a survey of our core network. We created different services based on nodes and based on services like VoLTE and the like. Our use cases are mainly to provide KPIs and to detect anomalies in case of an issue in the network.

Before we were pretty weak in network KPIs. That's the area where we have improved as a result of the solution, based on the service.

The solution transforms packet wire data into real-time data that is actionable. It helps us with faster detection of issues and allows us to create alerts.

It also provides the right people in our company with the right information in a single pane of glass view. There is always a place for improvement, but it does so. We have created a special dashboard for different teams so that each team has a relevant dashboard for the system.

In addition, nGeniusONE provides us with increased visibility while conducting an IT deployment. When we are launching a new node or a new application, it gives us a way to check that traffic has moved from one node to the other and that we still have the same level of traffic and the same success ratios.

It also helps us to get to root cause quickly, for sure, with the drill-down. If we see an issue on a KPI or we have an alert, we drill down to get into the special cases — tracing and that kind of thing — to detect the root cause.

Using nGeniusONE for unified communication application performance for VoIP helps us with uptime and user experience. We can see, for a given call, if it is a one-way or there are gaps.

The main feature, for us, is the dashboard. That is the main way we are using the solution to detect issues and to create alarms.

The drill-down is definitely interesting.

We are also using another tool from NETSCOUT, for tracing, called Iris Session Analyzer.

The solution's ability to transform packet wire data into well-structured contextual data works pretty well. But sometimes we've had issues because when we want to present some KPIs, not all the formats are available at the same time. When we think it would be better to present a KPI in a certain way, that means we have to remove another presentation. For example, there was a point in GTP where we were creating services on nodes and after that we wanted to have services on APN. We can't have both. That should come with the next release, but we are still not on version 6.3. So there are some limitations with these types of things. When we would like to use a feature, we have to remove another one. For me it's a bit of a drawback. I'm a bit frustrated with it. I would like to have everything, at all times.

For me, it would also be good to be able to split the system. For example, I would like a user to have rights for some probes but not the same rights for other probes. I'm thinking about a laboratory where we have probes and I would like to give all the rights in the laboratory to all users. I would like to have everything in the same system. We have users who can use both production and the laboratory but we aren't always able to specify that a user has access to only this part of the installation, or the hardware, while another user has access to another part. I would like to give a user rights to see everything in one part, but to have limitations in other parts, due to data protection.

Otherwise, the product is efficient and we are able to do most of the work which is required.

I have been using NETSCOUT nGeniusONE for about five years.

The stability could be a bit better. We are working right now to find solutions to improve the stability and we are in discussions with NETSCOUT about that.

The solution's distributed architecture, in terms of being both lightweight and scalable, is pretty good. The ability to distribute the solution is good. We have more and more use cases with virtualized systems, so we need a way to be able to distribute the solution on different clouds and sites.

There are about 100 users.

Previously we were using Tektronix, and that became NETSCOUT. We took nGeniusONE to improve our ability to detect issues. We were mainly working with a tracing system and nGeniusONE brought us more network visibility, with KPIs based on the network itself, and on the traffic in the network.

The initial setup was pretty complex. For me it was complex to configure everything as needed to be efficient: to get all the data, to have some reliability, and some confidence in the data quality. It was time-consuming. We need to understand what was possible, what was the best solution for evaluating a service, etc.

In one sense, the deployment is a never ending story, because each year we have new services and we need more capacity. We are always implementing new things. But the initial deployment itself took us almost a year.

In terms of our experience with NETSCOUT's customer support during deployment and post deployment, here are two levels. The first level was their people who are in direct contact with us and that level was good. When they needed support from development and R&D, at that level we had some quite long delays, at times, and the response was less good.

As for the learning curve, when people are used to working with the system, it's okay. At the beginning we had some training, but now, if a new colleague comes in, we can train him internally. We help colleagues on different teams by giving them training. With one day of training, you can already provide a lot of hints and information. After that, people need to learn by doing.

When it comes to administration, there are three of us who are mainly involved, but it's not 100 percent of the time for any of us. It might be the equivalent of one FTE. I'm a network engineer and I'm mainly involved in the monitoring and probing of new applications. When new services come out I work on increasing the capacity and evolving the system. So I'm not the main user working each day with it.

We have worked directly with a NETSCOUT consultant. We have a reseller, but direct contact with NETSCOUT is very important for me.

We needed this type of a solution. Without it we are fully blind. We can't even launch a service without one solution or another. We needed to put something in place, but I don't have figures or a monetary value for ROI. It gives us visibility.

The pricing is fair.

We have a yearly agreement that covers extensions, etc. There are no additional costs.

We didn't evaluate other solutions much because we already had a probe installed with Tektronix. NETSCOUT was quite a natural way to extend what already existed. We decided not to remove everything that was in place, but to extend instead.

It's a good tool. You need to have a clear view of what you need before you evaluate the system.

Automatic discovery and mapping of client-server relationships is not something we are using much, because we are more at the level of the network and a bit less at the level of all the servers and the internet application server.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using nGeniusONE is that to get good results from the system, you need good knowledge of the network. The system will, for sure, help to find issues, but it's not possible to have someone working with it, someone who doesn't know the network, and have that person fully use this type of system.

The main strengths of nGeniusONE are its simplicity and the availability of its service. I learned how to use it without any training, and I have been using it for two to three years without any problems.

nGeniusONE could be improved by reducing the number of bare metal servers required to run it. Currently, you need a separate bare metal server for each of the following: Xfinity, ISNG, nGeniusONE, and CFS. It would be more cost-effective and less complex if all of these functionalities could be combined into a single bare metal server.

nGeniusONE is not promoted enough because it has a lot of competitors, such as Huawei and Cisco. The larger companies tend to rely on their own well-known server or server solutions.

So, this product is not promoted enough. 

There are problems with integration as well. In most of our projects, we put that in our scope and limitations. It will not allow admin third-party apps.

In future releases, if they could switch up to the cloud services, that would be better.

I have been using it for several years. nGeniusONE is a very underrated product. It is not as well-known as some of the other traffic visibility solutions, but it is very useful, and I would recommend it.

I am satisfied with the performance of nGeniusONE.

It is a scalable product.

The customer service and support are good. 

Positive

The initial setup of nGeniusONE can be complex depending on the customer's network, location, and size. However, NETSCOUT provides its own standard setup procedures to help simplify the process.

It could improve it more by being more efficient and using less bare metal servers.

Make sure you know the basics. Make sure you read up on the user guide. There are some settings that you just gotta look it up. It is easy to figure out. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution when our customers have problems with their databases or communications. We use it to look at packages and packets and verify the behaviour of the NOC, the server, and the traffic, looking for a pattern that might identify the issue and what's happening now.

We started using the product because our customers had some problems with the network. We made changes to the network and made it stable. However, the customer told us there were still some errors. Then the people from the database told us the problem was the network, not the database. The only way to verify it was the database and not the network was by putting a sniffer in it. And that's why we use NETSCOUT.

The new version of the solution is like a grid, onto which we can put traffic and graph its behaviour for a certain amount of time. We can then use the behaviour, from one or two hours or maybe seven days, or 30 days. Looking at the results, allows us to verify whether anything is wrong. 

There is a big issue with the special way they use InfiniStream to store data. The InfiniStream has a certain capacity. So our customer centre asks why we don't store all the information that uses InfiniStream in Vblock or something like that. And NETSCOUT says that we need to store those data in a special way. And we use a special appliance called InfiniStream. So this kind of storage is not so big. For example, our customer has saved all the data, restored all the information, and backed it up elsewhere. For example, if something happened in the past month, we can see the package because the storage is a kind of FIFO. So we have a very limited space to see the previous days.

We've been using this solution for about six years.

The product is very good. We have very few problems. And if we do have any issues,  NETSCOUT gives us very good support. They have the right engineers that know the issues. And if anything is wrong with a device, you get an RMA. 

The solution is as scalable as we or our customer wish. But we don't plan to increase the usage for the moment because of the expense.

We have six people using the solution. 

We currently need three guys to deploy the solution and one to maintain it.

Tech support is good. We don't have any problem with that. I opened one case, and they solved it.

Positive

The initial setup was complex because we needed to know the package's source and destination when we tried to monitor certain conversations. So when we are tracing something or trying to fix one issue or error, we need to know precisely how the communication is, where the sources and the destinations are, etc. So we need to talk with the person that develops the applications, the database, and the network. , we need to know specifically the part of the network the package is going through. With all this information and with NETSCOUT, we can very easily solve the issue or try to find the error, but for specific communication.

When we started with the customer, NETSCOUT directly supported us with the implementation. And after that, we were all on our own. 

It took us six months to deploy the product.

I don't know exactly how the licencing works. I think it's about the ports from InfiniStream. For example, if you have five InfiniStreams, each InfiniStream has four ports, so I think you need to acquire a licence for 20 nodes.

We can get everything in a bundle. But the price is different if you acquire virtual InfiniStream or vSTREAM. But in the end, the price is only for acquisition; it's not a licence. The license is for the ports, one per InfiniStream.

I advise anyone wanting to use the solution to have one completely dedicated engineer. Here in Mexico, we have one engineer who's essential in many things. When a company acquires NETSCOUT, they need specific people responsible only for that and not involved with anything else.

On a scale of one to 10, I would give NETSCOUT nGeniusONE nine.

We use it for our network capacity performance, for the entire ICM backbone core.

In addition, our company uses the solution for unified communication application performance. While it's not my team, there is another team responsible for capacity performance for video and they are using the same NETSCOUT toolset for wireless, wire line, and video.

I manage the entire building, so I have the responsibility for extending network capacity if we hit a limitation. It gives us the possibility of increasing the capacity wherever it is required. We have over 55,000 employees across Canada, from the Atlantic to Vancouver, so I use the tool on a daily basis to do my analysis.

It helps us get to root cause quickly. When we have a problem or people are reporting latency on their network, my guys are, of course, checking for the dates, specific times, and IP. We can get all the information that we are looking for, in detail. While my guys are not responsible for finding root cause, the solution is quite helpful in finding it.

In addition, it has cut our overall troubleshooting time for my network guys, when there's a real network problem. It has increased our network uptime as well.

The valuable features include 

• packet analysis
• packet capture
• it's easy to use. 

The single pane of glass view is a challenge. I like the graphics, they're easy to understand, but when more digging is required, it's more complicated to get what I'm expecting. Since the challenge for me is the dashboard, I would appreciate having a better view from the dashboard. What I don't know is whether the issue is that our configuration needs work. We probably don't do the mapping and the dependency configuration properly and that may be the reason why my dashboard is not crystal clear.

The solution is pretty stable.

It's also pretty scalable, there is no problem with that. It can be expensive, but if you have a good configuration, based on what you are looking for, it's okay, it's manageable.

The technical support is very good. We are well supported by the team. Even with the PULSE - I am new on this team, I have been here less than a year - they were there all the time, on a regular basis, to provide support on that completely new application for us. We were asking very simple questions and they were always there for us. It's been a great collaboration.

The initial setup would be complex for me, since I don't have that kind of talent, but it was pretty simple for my guys.

On my team, we are doing the implementation. Other teams within the company are using third-parties to do the deployment. But on my side, it's all internal people.

We're losing a thousand per minute when we're down. Being able to know where the problem is more quickly, we're going to save a lot of money.

I'm not a big fan of pushing a particular vendor, but it is a very good product: pretty stable, pretty scalable, with a very good and solid engineering team behind it. They are available and listen to customer needs and are always willing to do more to improve their products. But because I don't like to push a product too much, I prefer that people see and try it to see if they like it, to see if it fits their needs.

The tool itself is just fantastic. We've been using it since 2001 or 2002. We are a big fan of the product.

If we are satisfied with what we have, we don't ask for more. It's always about problem resolution or product improvement. We used to have regular, weekly calls with our NETSCOUT rep and, as soon they had a new product, a new version, new updates, they would share them with us, and we would know if we wanted to go in that direction or not. Today, we are quite happy and satisfied with what we have.

We don't yet use the solution for proactive monitoring of SaaS applications or remote sites. We are working on the deployment of PULSE. I can easily imagine that with that new solution deployed in production, we will be able to do more and more proactively. It's not because it's not available with nGeniusONE, it's just that I have no one to check and be proactive.

We will see a decrease in mean time to know and mean time to repair, more and more in the coming months, with PULSE. It's more about a business impact. With PULSE, we will have that "radar view", a view of the network, the server, and the application. So instead of needing 15 resources on a call at 2 AM, and losing 45 minutes just to get everyone there to find out what the is problem, with the PULSE solution, we are going to decrease that MTTR dramatically.

Because nGeniusONE is pretty stable and scalable, I would say it's a good nine out of ten.

The primary use case is network monitoring for telecoms.

Everybody is using the same tool set. Therefore, we are speaking the same language.

Network faults are easily and quickly identified through dashboards and drill down.

It has versatility to correlate different traffic types and performance management statistics.

The single pane of glass view is very simple and good. For my users, having all the applications in one place is the aim.

We would like more encryption of customer data, because we have a very security conscious company. We have a lot of regulation coming in which requires us to make customer data private.

There is a lot more integration work that needs to be finalized for simpler tool set. The integration of many products into a much simpler single pane of glass is where we want to be.

The stability is good. We haven't had a major failure for years. Apart from the hardware's age, the software is pretty robust.

The current solution is not easy to scale, because it is an appliance-based solution. So, you have to swap everything out.

The technical support is OK. While it is not outstanding, we don't have any complaints.

We did not have another solution previously.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward, as any network integration can be. The complexity comes when you are trying to tune it.

We used a reseller for the deployment. They were very good. We have a good working relationship with them.

We have seen some ROI with the root cause analysis. It is quicker to root cause analysis. We are seeing increased network uptime, because if we're spotting, and if we're getting root cause analysis quicker, then we know what comes up quicker.

From my user community, I am getting the impression that something which use to take days has now gone to hours for troubleshooting.

The primary use case is for network monitoring, event management, packet tracing, and forensics.

We have cut back on our troubleshooting, by isolating certain trouble areas. It has brought visibility to what requires replacement in the future.

We had a situation where a client said the network was the problem, because their reports weren't running from an automated server report. After multiple support groups tried to isolate and troubleshoot the situation, the incident came to us. We were able to isolate it with five minute clicks and determine that it was an access issue.

The visual and graphical interfaces in the display that it provides for us to show our senior leadership. We can show them what is actually happening, instead of a spreadsheet.

I like the single pane of glass view. A single pane of glass view of the network will help us address important needs more quickly based on our alarming.

The dependency mapping is very helpful and resourceful.

I would like to see nGeniusPULSE and AED (Arbor Edge Defense) integrated with the solution.

Some help screens would be nice, especially if we bring on new operators. It would be great to see if they have more helpful tips available.

Between the host analysis and session analysis, there is a limitation of one hour. This can hinder us if a situation occurred ten hours ago. Sometimes, you can't open up that window.

It is reliable.

Scalability is great. I am looking forward to seeing more.

The technical support has been very attentive and responsive to our needs when I have called.

The solution was deployed in-house.

We are starting to see ROI.

We have seen a measurable decrease in mean time to know (MTTK) and mean time to repair (MTTR).

This solution has cut our overall troubleshooting time.

The solution has helped us increase our application/network uptime.

Do a proof of concept. Get to know your account manager.

We use the product to monitor infrastructure devices and troubleshoot application behavior if there is any issue.

The solution helps me understand the issues and troubleshoot.

If the connection doesn’t work, the product provides us with a code, for example, 5000. Then, we have to search the internet to understand what this number means. It would be better if the product gave us a code and its meaning while identifying issues.

The solution needs enhancements. We need to reconfigure the tool if we have a connection with dissimilar ports. The tool should ideally capture all traffic. However, it is unable to analyze unknown ports. I have to reconfigure and refine the tool to monitor the connection. This process is a waste of time.

I have been using the solution for six months.

I rate the stability a six or seven out of ten. The product crashed a few times within six months of implementation.

The solution is scalable. It works the same when we add more components. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Almost 50 employees are using the solution in our organization.

We need regular support from the vendor. The support is good.

Positive

The solution is not easy to install.

It took us three to four hours to deploy the tool. We needed only one engineer to deploy it.

The product is too expensive compared to other products.

We also use SolarWinds. We are trying the tool because our organization needs multiple monitoring solutions. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The primary use case is to have the ability to detect issues that a customer would eventually see. It's a more proactive approach for making the customers have a better satisfaction in terms of their usage and performance.

It gives us quicker reaction times and more proactive diagnostics, especially in terms of needing to set up an alarm if a threshold was exceeded.

It gives us a deep package inspection. It provides that sort of visibility. It also has the ability to get the data in real-time.

This solution helps us get to root cause quickly, especially as we dive deep capturing packets.  

• The quick ability to troubleshoot.
• The ability to look forward.
• The ability to develop proactive solutions.

It is the ability to collect data and analyze it, especially key performance indicators. This is before a customer would call to the service center to complain that they have had bad coverage or a dropped call.

While it is good, the single pane of glass view is too high level. It is better for management or someone doing sanity checks. A lot of times, I need to go deeper into the additional screens to get what I want out of it.

We would like to have increased performance in the future. Eventually, we will need more horsepower.

We would like NETSCOUT to add additional topics to the data that it collects, because big data is important going forward.

It's very stable. 

When we first got the tool, there were some performance issues. Eventually, they worked out the issues through various upgrades and server hardware enhancements. That was a plus.

We do have two onsite NETSCOUT engineers, who are excellent. Especially when we encounter an issue, we tell them right away, "We have an issue. Can you fix it?"

We don't have to wait a few days for something to be solved.

The initial setup was a probably a little complex. We had to get things up and running, do field trials, fine tune the performance, then evaluate it under load, and fine tune it again.

We worked closely with NETSCOUT for the deployment. 

We have our own IT department who channels the server, infrastructure, and networking. I'm on the engineering side, and we work directly side-by-side with NETSCOUT. 

We don't use a third party vendor.

Proactive versus a customer having a bad experience: That is the key point. Because you get a bad experience, and you lose customers. You always want tools to make your customer happy.

The solution gives us a forward looking vision. We develop custom applications on top of the data that we collect. It gives us that ability, which is an advantage.

It's definitely decreased troubleshooting time. We get a direct window into the infrastructure and various probes, especially the ability to capture certain KPIs that we look at. Normally, if we didn't have this tool, we would have to collect them under various vendor boxes. That takes time and experience.

Deep packet inspection is the key point for NETSCOUT versus the other competitive tools that we also use.

Take a look at it. If not, you're losing the opportunity to improve your performance in terms of its customer aspects.