Quest Foglight for Databases Reviews

Primarily, we use it to monitor about 1,500 databases for availability and for database space, among other metrics.

It enables us to monitor multiple database platforms. We have MS SQL, Oracle, Db2, and Sybase. We also have Vertica and other platforms for which we use a custom monitoring solution from Foglight. That ability has been very helpful because the DBAs don't have to go to different vendors to get the information. It's all assembled in one place and it buys them time and makes it simple to find out what's going on with the databases.

Using it, we're also able to monitor the OS, hybrid clouds, and hardware across different platforms. For the most part, it would just be the Linux and Windows platforms, because those are the main two that we use. This ability is handy because of the resulting simplicity for the DBAs.

We have four flavors of databases and we're able to monitor them all using a single pane. That comes in handy to the DBAs.

Foglight is also able to help the DBAs proactively fix problems before they become an issue. It provides them with real-time activity screens that help in this regard. The DBAs are able to go to these screens and look at what's happening in real time, and that buys them time. It helps them see problems ahead of time and find solutions to them.

Foglight does a lot out-of-the-box, but there are times when you need something that it doesn't come with; a custom solution. I would like the rule development code to be made available so we don't always have to be referred to professional services for custom solutions. For example, if we want to exclude certain databases from a particular rule, we shouldn't have to go to support and to professional services for that solution. If the code and syntax were available, we have resources that could quickly turn something like that around. 

But having said that, the help is there if we need it. It's just that it probably costs some money to do that.

I have been using Quest Foglight For Databases for about five and a half years. I'm not a DBA. I just stand up the platform and make sure it is available for use by our DBAs.

I've had problems with its stability in the past, but they were because the platform was not tuned correctly. One thing that I would suggest is that they should put that information out there: How to tune the platform and make sure that it's running at its optimum capacity. I had problems with it for a long time, and it took a while before we could get it running with optimum performance. If I had known how to do it ahead of time, we could have saved some time.

The scalability is very good for us. The one thing that we've been told is that when you have more than 800 databases, you have to spawn another management station. I hope that can be expanded for a single FMS (Foglight Management Server). The number of databases that one FMS can monitor in an optimum way should be more than 800. We haven't had that problem yet, but we are fast approaching that number and it's a concern.

We've never used the SQL-PI component of it but we plan to use it, and that will make it that much more beneficial. It will provide analyses of the database processes. It will be beneficial for our SQL queries and for how to approach the configuration of indices.

Their technical support is a nine out of 10. There is always room for improvement. There are times when a question is asked and it takes a little longer than expected to get a response back. It may be that they are juggling the needs of other customers, and I understand that. But that would be the only complaint.

We have their Premier Support. One of the advantages is that we're able to have 'round-the-clock support. There are times when you have a problem and you can't wait until the next day or, if it's a Friday, until Monday. When we need help right away, that has been very helpful.

I'm not aware of any previous solution. When I joined the company, Foglight was in use already.

The process is very straightforward. It's more like plug-and-play and very easy. I have rarely had to call support to help with any installation.

We normally have to do the installation in a non-cloud environment and test it out. If there are any problems we encounter with any of the rules, we iron them out with support. Once things are satisfactory and we're confident, we'll push it into production.

In our environment it takes a long time to deploy, but that's not something to do with the product. It's a result of the resources we have and the fact that we have a lot of hoops to go through to get things validated internally. But none of that has anything to do with the Quest product.

We use the help of a consultant from Quest to deploy. They are always available, but they have to work with our bottlenecks, internally. I appreciate that they are very flexible in working with us.

It's a great product. It's probably one of the best in this class and people should not hesitate getting on board with the product. I have found it's very useful for my DBAs.

There are certain situations where you actually need professional services, rather than going in there and getting yourself mired up in something that you can't fix yourself. You should really consider the use of professional services before you get involved in problems that you can't fix yourself.

We use it for monitoring SQL databases, specifically to assess database contention. Additionally, we utilize it for real-time monitoring before deploying changes to production environments.

It provides real-time activity data. When people are saying that things are slow and not moving, we log in, identify the query that is causing the slowdowns, and address the query. It helps us determine what is causing slowdowns and address them.

We were able to see its benefits immediately. We got it to know what is going on in the database. We could very quickly identify the issue.

It enables us to monitor multiple databases. We are currently monitoring two SQL databases. One is our production server, and the other one is our test server. Before putting things in production, we test them in the test environment to ensure that there are no slowdowns with any new implementations. I know it is capable of monitoring many different types of databases, but we just use it for two SQL Servers.

It is good to quickly diagnose and resolve emerging issues. That is why we got it. It enables us to drill down and see what is causing the issue if something does not look right.

I find the SQL statements and activity highlights helpful. We look at them and see what is happening on a database. The graph and resource consumption have helped a few times. We were able to determine a network problem. Because we looked at it every day and saw this network rate increasing, we knew something was going on in the network. We could then investigate. That helped a couple of times.

What I really like is the SQL PI feature, which allows us to drill down into queries and identify what is causing contention in the database. Using the SQL PI feature, I am able to drill down into the queries, see what is blocking, and try to improve it.

It would be helpful to have more communication about new features. The concept of intensive database queries sounds beneficial, but I am not aware of how to access this feature. 

Better communication and alerts regarding the transaction logs getting full would also be beneficial. What I have noticed is that if the log files on the SQL server are full, we cannot log in and have to do some cleanup on the Foglight DB. It would be good if they could monitor that and alert us when it is getting too full. That will be handy so that we do not have to wait till it stops working and then clean up the transaction logs. I know we can set up some backups for the transaction logs. It schedules some backups on the transaction log table but sometimes, the backups might not run. It would be handy if there was some indicator saying that the transaction logs are getting full.

I do not like the OS monitoring part of it much. It does not tell me much. It has a nice graphical interface showing the system, the CPU, the files, and some real-time things going on there, but all that is not that useful. The most useful part for me is SQL PI. There are advisories, but most of the time, I ignore them. I look at them only when there is a major problem, and even then, they do not specifically tell me what the issue might be. It just gives an overview. It is not detailed.

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

It is generally stable. However, if transaction logs get full without proper cleanup, it can affect performance.

Previously, when I was using the embedded SQL, there was some lagging. There were some performance issues. That was one of the reasons for moving away from that and going to the SQL Server instance. The transition to SQL Server improved stability from the previous embedded SQL setup. The only issue is when the transaction logs are full.

The support is okay. I would rate them a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have not used anything to this extent. I have done a few things in SQL Management Studio.

I like the Quest Foglight solution because it is easy and quick. We can quickly see what is going on at a glance. It also has real-time monitoring. With most tools, if there is something going on in a database, you only get a snapshot of time. It is not tracking the history, and the history is the big thing.

It is fully on-premises. We only use it for two servers, and we prefer it to be on-premises. Most of our servers are on-premises.

The deployment was not that difficult. The first version I had was the embedded SQL Server. For version 7.1, I had a dedicated SQL server. Their team helped with that, and it was fine. It was not too difficult. 

It did not take that long. There is not much to do here. Once we have the instance up, we just set up the agent on the databases we want to monitor.

The deployment was done by me with the assistance of Foglight support.

I would rate Quest Foglight for Databases a six out of ten. The product is good, but communication on updates and new features should be improved. We do not always know what is going on with the product.

We use the solution for SQL Server and auction. We have a couple of customers using it for the other case. Other customers are also extending the infrastructure monitoring from the virtualization and the storage.

A feature called Workload Analysis is an important feature. We always offer to our customers which is better than a database. It has a heterogeneous environment. We can monitor from the same console with different database platforms. It is very useful for the DDS responsible for more than one database. Compared to other tools with database vendors, it's more inexpensive. Also, the price is a major factor for us to position to our customers.

Some customers have issues with the way the data gets read and accumulated. They are expecting a different way of data monitoring. After explanation, they understand what exactly they are doing. Quest Foglight primarily focuses on database monitoring. Some customers question its capabilities for application performance monitoring, specifically for Java applications and duplicate detection. End-to-end user experience monitoring was once available but is also currently absent. Foglight provides deep insights for DBAs and infrastructure teams but lacks dedicated application capabilities and user experience monitoring. Foglight must be combined with other specialized tools for comprehensive end-to-end monitoring encompassing applications, networks, databases, operating systems, and infrastructure.

I have been using Quest Foglight for Databases as a system integrator for 15-16 years. We are currently using V7.1 of the solution.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

We have nine customers using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

Customer service is responsive, but it has not been so responsive for the last two years. The resources dealing with tickets are taking too much time to respond. We have to wait a week to get an answer or a response. When they respond, they provide the right response. We have lost opportunities during the POC because of the slightly delayed response.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. We have the expertise to run standard installations with high availability. It depends on the customer and the setup complexity of the environment. The monitoring part can go up and running in one day. Setup may take a week, but we have a customer where we started at 10 AM and ended at 02 PM. It was running and monitoring around 15 equal server database instances in four hours.

Three people are required for the deployment, including one for the database and two for the infrastructure.

The licensing model is straightforward. From day one, we know about the charges and costs involved in a project.

I rate the product’s pricing a five out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I used it when working for a client, in a situation where you takeover management of the systems.

Maintenance was not done properly for over two years before I came in. The solution crashed over the next year, then we migrated the client to another monitoring platform.

• Baselines
• Advisers
• Reoccurring events 
• Its reporting capabilities are immense.
• The deployment is good to work with.
• History capabilities

Performance: When holding data for two years for 20 SQL Servers, the reporting becomes sluggish and unresponsive.

Advise is to size the DB server behind Foglight correctly (which means very big)

No

Yes see other pieces I wrote regarding correctly size the backend DB Server for Foglight

Use to have very basic monitoring like PRTG, N-Able, Zabbix

No setup is awesome complicated (at least the old versions I used to work with)

in house

Have no idea

Red Gate would be the winner!

Red Gate SQLMONITOR

IDERA Diagnostig Manager

It will not fix nothing, you still have to be on expert level