OpenText Operations Bridge Reviews

This solution is used for centralized infrastructure and application monitoring. It will take monitoring data from other tools and contribute to the central repository. Sometimes it is integrated with the service desk to create incidents when something goes wrong.

I have used versions of this product for Windows and Linux, and they are slightly different.

The most valuable feature is the seamless monitoring of both Windows and Unix servers.

You can create an application topology that shows relationships between different components.

The advancement of this solution seems to have stalled. These types of products have a long history and it may be best to create a brand new application, from scratch. It is difficult to suggest significant improvements.

The initial setup of this tool is complex for people who lack experience with it.

It would be great to improve the automatic discovery of application topology.

I have been using Micro Focus Operations Manager for more than six years.

We have had no issues with respect to stability.

Scalability has been good enough for our needs.

I have been in contact with Micro Focus support a few times and I would rate them a four out of five. Sometimes, they took to long to solve problems. The response time was always good, but it was the time it took to actually resolve the issue that was slow in some cases.

The initial setup is complex. It is not easy to understand how to correctly implement it for the first time. Subsequent implementations were much easier because we had some experience. You have to understand what you want to monitor before you start with the implementation, and a technical person is required.

The deployment takes approximately three to five months for a medium-sized implementation.

This is a product that I would recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Monitoring our hybrid infrastructure, where we have AWS, GCP, and on-premise.

Also, the container monitoring was a good point.

The preloaded rules and ways to monitor your systems are a must. We did not want to create rules for each system and software.

We are able to better identify the root cause of an incident. It also reduces the number of tickets that we have received, because there is some correlation.

Implementation could be improved. We also need training and a good partner in order to install and configure it.

No issues.

We used Nagios, but it was not able to monitor container and cloud well.

The first setup was complex. That is why we asked for a partner's help.

Setup costs can be high depending on the partner, but it is worth it.

No other options.

We are using this solution for incident management, and event automation.

In Micro Focus OBM, everything was controlled at the node level and now everything can be controlled at the console level. 

It's a very good product overall.

The pricing could be improved.

I have been using Micro Focus Operations Manager for ten years.

We are using the latest version.

It's very stable.

It's a scalable solution. 

We have approximately 45,000 users in our organization. 

We are only working with two products, one is Micro Focus Operations Manager, and the other is Orchestration, that we are trying.

It's very easy to install.

We have a team of 15 members to deploy, maintain, and support this solution.

The cost is very high.

We plan to continue using this solution. We are already working on a new project using Micro Focus and I recommend it for other users.

I would rate Micro Focus Operations Manager a nine out of ten.

It's difficult to assess the valuable features. We are living in a small country while HP is more focused on larger companies, so for us it's quite expensive. It's very powerful, but it's quite expensive.

The broad integration possibilities, I'd say, with any kind of product, are probably the most valuable feature.

We are waiting for quicker release cycles. Also containerized upgrade, so that you don't have to bring a system entirely down to make a minor upgrade, in fact, or a minor patch.

With support, you have to apply some changes which require a restart. That is in fact unacceptable. It's a good product, but there's still too much development to do on the customer's side to have it really working.

We have been using the solution, all through the versions, about 15 years.

It's quite stable.

In the latest versions, it is quite scalable. The problem is, when you want to extend, it takes a lot of work. It has a lot of consequences. I hope this will be improving very soon.

Technical support is improving. I'd say they're rather reactive in most cases. I'd say that on the later versions of Operations Bridge, for instance, responses are quite good. Looking into all their systems, which are still supported, we're missing some information.

I have the impression that the engineers are not skilled enough anymore because they evolve. All the older products tend to be forgotten. But we're still dealing with them. It's a bit of a challenge.

Setups are complex, not straightforward. First of all, there are all the checks that you have to do. You have to see if it does not interfere with other integrated products. There are some parameters that might get lost.

There's a whole bunch of eventual hot fixes and patches that should be installed first. This requires down time, so you bring down the entire system. That's a very bad situation.

We consider mostly the solution itself when assessing vendors.