What needs improvement with NETSCOUT nGeniusONE?

NETSCOUT nGeniusONE is a complex product since it deals in areas like network packet brokers and packet analysis, making the tool complicated for end users. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

Maybe the optics cost could be improved. It's not about the product itself, but the optics cost from other companies is very high, which affects the business. When you buy a $1 million product, you shouldn't be expected to pay $500,000 for support. So, support, operation, and professional services are very expensive. It's the main weakness. There were some issues that have been addressed now. There's the new JTP correlation and the Smart User Plan feature, and they've already implemented them.

NETSCOUT nGeniusONE's pricing is higher compared to the competitors. It is more than 15-18 percent of competitor costs. It also needs to add AI features.

The platform's data analysis feature needs improvement. There is currently less visibility or GUI to analyse the packet for troubleshooting purposes. In comparison, it is easy to analyse the packets using the solutions like Wireshark.

They should include an application coloring feature for firewall in the solution.

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.

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.

NETSCOUT nGeniusONE can improve the detection of what area of the infrastructure could be having an issue, such as an application, server, or network. It needs to find evidence of a fault.

There is a need to reduce the complexity of this solution.

The solution could do more for security. It should offer more security-related features.

They can improve still on the workflows, document their workflows that are commonly used. Also, if you do backups of the system or try to do configuration changes, there are a lot of different formats that you need to separately interpret. It doesn't flow nicely. With config backup, for example, there are a few variants that you have to collect. Otherwise, you have to use the system backup, which we haven't restored yet, so I don't know exactly how that process works. There are one or two things for the grids that would be nice to have. And it would be nice to be able to change some of the metrics, here and there, on the normal overviews. Currently it's working. We had a lot of issues in the beginning with patches that we had to load, but that was more of the teething and learning how to configure the system as well. It's not quite the same as the TruView which has end-user response metrics. The nGeniusONE doesn't quite do the same thing. It's a more technical tool compared to what we're used to, or what the client is used to with TruView. For some of the stuff we've seen we have had to build multiple sections or multiple pages to get a view of the environment or branch or application. On a scale of one to 10, the solution's ability to transform packet wire data into well-structured, contextual data is a seven. There is room for improvement. It goes back to the workflows. We don't know some of the workflows yet, and it's not something that you can just read up in the manual. There is some stuff in the help manual and online, but it's to a point where you need to purchase extra training and services from them. You can't just go and read up on it yourself and learn from A to Z and then, if you require extra training or certification, you could go further in-depth into that. That's part of the business model, I assume. Also, it's not always the case that the solution provides the right people in our organization with the right information in a single pane of glass view. There are times where we would want to get a different view on some of the service dashboards. We can't really get all the views that we would want on a single pane of glass. Overall, there is room for improvement, but so far it is a useful system.

Initially, we were having a lot of issues with bugs when using version 6.1.1. There were a lot of problems with the dashboard causing confusion. We worked with our SE and the NETSCOUT engineering team to fix the visibility with the data. There should be a patch release to fix this issue. However, this seems to be working fine for us right now after the 6.2.2 upgrade.

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 another app that we use for traditional universal monitoring, where I have more features in the dashboard than I have in the grid. This is regarding TCP Zero Window. That could stand some additional improvement. The ability to generate reports and run a report based on a specific host that might be having an issue. Right now, you have to do a drill down in order to find it. Whereas, if that was presented upfront, that would save a lot of time. In previous versions, we used to have an icon on the dashboard when the situation analysis would present an alert. It would be nice if that would be made available on the dashboard again. Something that could be customizable to only illuminate on certain applications. The solution transforms packet wire data into real-time data that is ready to act on. It provides stability where we can drill down into it. It gives us a good view. It would be nice if the cache could be a bit more responsive.

I would like to see improvement in the user experience. It's hard to manage it. We need a dedicated, highly-qualified person, compared to similar tools. Obviously, it's in a higher bracket, salary-wise. That's something the NETSCOUT team needs to focus on. It's a completely niche-skill technology, where we need to have the skills to manage, maintain, and deploy it. When it comes to implementation, if they could provide some templates or some suggestions it would be helpful because this is a complex solution. Perhaps NETSCOUT could offer predefined Professional Services through which they could guide companies. In our scenario, I and my team have complete expertise for most of the things that are involved, and we were able to do it. But for other companies, if NETSCOUT could come up with some templates or some guidelines in Professional Services, it would be great in helping to get the solution deployed.

The initial deployment is tedious and requires a lot of build, deployment and configuration time. Experience is key to a successful deployment. It is critical to work with the network team to understand how the data flows across the estate to ensure that you tap, aggregate, de-capsulate, de-crypt, and de-duplicate correctly. From these points, you need to ensure that the logical strategy and configuration suits the correct reporting and visibility as to ensure that you get the most out of any potential logical context. It is also important to ensure that you spend time to understand the applications you want to profile and work with the application owners to ensure that everything is aligned correctly.

Some of the filters could be easier to see and to set up. That's the only thing that I've ever had any trouble with. The ones that I've seen here, at NETSCOUT Engage 2019, are part of a newer version that we don't have yet, and it looks better. So, it may already have been fixed.

It is a good product with a few limitations. It is so complex and takes a bit of training to figure out. We need better training, so we can take this complex solution and implement it more easily. Change the font size on the grid in nGeniusONE so the names of the grids will all fit on the grid tiles. The font is so large that you can't see the name.

They can improve the UI. For example, with all modern tools, they generate a shared URL, like a Slack URL. Somebody clicks and they see the exact same thing as you. With this tool, if you want to tell somebody how to get to your view, you have to give pointer steps. The single pane of glass is a decent effort, but it is not how things are done these days. It is not a good monitoring tool. It is more like response tool for us.

The product was lacking for awhile when they did the Arbor acquisition. I was waiting to see more security stuff, which they did eventually add, and is now impressive.

The single pane of glass is possibly overrated. The dependency mapping is good, but I am hopeful that they will build some type of partnership and relationship with ServiceNow. I want to see NETSCOUT partner with ServiceNow so they can leverage Service Now Discovery and Service Mapping to automate the build of the service dependency mappings inside of nGeniusONE. The user interface needs some updates. There is some complexity to the product. You have to understand where the InfiniStreams are and what physical interfaces are connected where, so when you go into the user interface, you know what data you are collecting and from where.

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.

In terms of additional features, Bruce Kelly was talking about the NFV and 5G aspects of it, in monitoring all the APIs for all of those functions. We're really looking forward to seeing that so that we can give better visibility into the functioning of the cloud and the orchestrator itself. There is room for improvement in its stability and by expanding into the cloud and orchestration sphere, which I think is on the roadmap.

I need more details on the vSTREAM and how that scales from a CPU perspective. I know that we can start with one virtual CPU, but at the same time, our clouds are still limited by compute nodes. That's an ongoing question and it's part of why we're here at NETSCOUT Engage 2019, to see how we architect that out. I'd like to see improvement in scalability and the CPU perspective on the actual cloud nodes. It would be good to have a roadmap of what impact to our underlying cloud we will see as we add vSTREAM vCPUs.

There is a lot of the VoLTE, voice, video MOS, and customer experience that we'd like to do. There's a lot of throughput analysis where we're trying to understand, with the vendor, whether it's accurate or we need more work on it. Those are our top priorities. NG1 has been stable for a while in our environment - at least we have what we needed. But with nBA, there's a lot of room for improvement.

In terms of the single pane of glass view, it's good, but trying to set up dashboards is hard to figure out at times, if you don't do it every day. It's not really intuitive to set them all up. Other than that, it's a good dashboard. A lot of people are using it. If there were a wizard to take us through, step-by-step, creating dashboards and the like, that would be really helpful.

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.

I would like more in-depth convergence between all the applications, especially when I look for information through a data mine. It has a lot of what I like to use, but some features are not there yet. It is sometimes even going down to older protocols still getting used in the world right now. They need to improve using voice other SIP.

The feature I am looking for is the Arbor technology, especially to run in parallel with our firewall. That's one thing that I've definitely wanted and, eventually, it's getting there.

I would love to have them reassemble fragmented packets. That would be a very big plus in my book. While it does give me increased visibility while conducting IT deployments, I have experience some limitations with it. We have jumbo frames, which can get fragmented. They don't bring together everything that I need for me to work right. If I could get an end-to-end, then it would give me a good view of how everything would be in my particular call flow.

This is not so much application-specific but rather is about the user experience: How the user experience has degraded is what I would like to see more in the tool. A lot of tools highlight what's going on but they don't actually pinpoint the user experience. It would be good if there were a small message or something highlighting what the user experience is like and any degradation that's actually occurring.

I'd like to see more data expert capabilities. That's one of the big things we're looking forward to, with the release of the KAFKA exports, and expanding the kind of data we can both import and export with the system. Also, for individual subscriber tracings, sometimes it does not capture all the messages. There is a little bit of room for improvement there.

We would like better end-to-end data flows. This is something that my users always complain about, as they don't know what the data flows are on the network. We have things, like Cisco NetFlow, but all you have is the two endpoints that you have captured from a probe. We would like to know every point along the line.

I like the Dependency Mapping the solution provides. I wish there was a better way to show large groups, greater than 500, instead of just not displaying anything. I would like to see it closer to more of an APM-type, or at least have that availability to compete with APM - the AppDynamics and solutions like that. I feel it's a natural step to at least have that available. Also, some integrations with ticketing systems like ServiceNow would be helpful.

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.

In terms of the single pane of glass view, when we build it out in the nGeniusOne platform, there are multiple tiles and, depending on what we're trying to examine, it doesn't all fit in one single pane of glass. It would be nice to have that functionality, but you really do have to categorize things because there is so much data. The biggest thing is being able to provide net path. One of the products we use is SolarWinds, and it provides a very cool mapping of an agent from end-to-end. If NETSCOUT could somehow implement that into their design, whether it be sniffer-to-sniffer, or that kind of thing. I know they have some functionality along those lines, but if they could make it quicker and easier to get those net paths, it would be huge. I could quickly plug in problem IPs and get a full hosted view of where it's going from end-to-end. That would be really useful. Finally, the GUI, the interface, has room for improvement. It's user-friendly to a degree, but when comparing it to other products, such as in the Cisco environment or SolarWinds, I found that I could just fumble my way through those tools very easily without training. Whereas with NETSCOUT, I need training in order to set stuff up because I would never figure that out on my own.

In terms of additional features, they have the virtual clients here at NETSCOUT Engage 2019, and they have really expanded that. That type of coverage is going to be crucial. The COTS that they are doing now are a very good idea, to lower the price some. We work with them weekly, and if we uncover something, a feature that would be relevant, we usually report it. A lot of times it will get included. Regarding room for improvement, on a network the size of ours, the loading times seem a little extensive, 20 or 30 seconds to load up some graphs. But there is a lot of data being crunched. That's all server hardware.

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.

The product is a little complicated.

In terms of the single pane of glass view, NETSCOUT has many tools. I think NG1 provides that single pane for a lot of things, but users are still using several different applications within the NETSCOUT realm of applications, and more integration would be helpful. Our biggest area of concern right now, supporting the applications, is that while NETSCOUT does a good job of monitoring the network and the applications, we need more visibility into system health and performance monitoring. We need something that will monitor the tool that monitors the network.

The areas it covers are so vast that the improvement would be in the user's understanding of what it can do. Having that information available to customers more easily might be helpful, although I believe it is available to customers easily through their website. There are so many pieces of their product that integrate with one another that perhaps a recommendation for improvement would be some sort of bigger overview and map to help understand how all their pieces integrate together. On the plus side, they always have resources available, instantly, when you have a question about it. It's not like that information can't be found.

I'd like to see the nGeniusONE, the nGeniusPULSE, and the OptiView, their three separate products, work a little better together, a little more streamlined. We can hook up an OptiView to our system and it will bring it up on our nGeniusONE splash page where we can go and click on it. But we can't really use the OptiView functionality with the nGeniusONE functionality as far as throughput tests go. If we wouldn't have to have multiple OptiViews throughout our system, and we could just have one that connects straight back and does all the functionality with nGeniusONE that two OptiViews do, that would be awesome. Another thing that would help out is if they packaged the NetFlow monitor into nGeniusONE. Their NetFlow monitor works with nGeniusONE where you can actually get the netflow of pretty much anything you hook it up to. But it's a separate box that you have to buy. If there was a way that they could package that into nGeniusONE, it would be a complete package straight out of the box. It does a lot for you without it, but with the NetFlow monitor, in our situation, we'd be able to replace three other tools right off the bat.

The GUI has gotten better over time but there could be some improvement in how the GUI is built. That's one of the major areas of feedback I get from the users.

This is a typical thing, but every time they do a major code upgrade, we get hit with some nasty bugs. Some of them literally stop the whole platform from collecting traffic data. They should really do more Q&A on software stability before release.

Most of the functionality I mentioned above could be improved, to be honest. Also, it's not intuitive, it's not simple to use. It is probably the only monitoring tool, out of all the ones that I have, that I really need an expert on, an expert from nGenius, a contractor that I have to pay, to manage the tool. And that's because it's simply not easy to use. NETSCOUT needs to focus on making it easier to use. I should not need to pay an expensive resource to be able to manage the tool for me. With any other tool, I'm able to do that management internally. They should focus on the user experience, not just on the capabilities that they can provide. User experience is important these days. That would be one area where it could be improved. Another, which might be related, is that it's almost like "white elephant." There are so many features that it makes it hard to know it all. You end up paying for things that you don't use and probably don't even need. It might be better if NETSCOUT came up with a modular way to pay for what you're going to use and not pay for all of this "white elephant" without being able to take advantage of all of it. I also think that it's a little too dependent on physical agents all over the place. If they were able to move a bit more to the virtual environment that would be better. I believe that we still depend too much on physical appliances to get the most out of the tool. And by the way, I recently found out that they do have some virtual environments that they can deploy but I'm not sure that it's widely known yet. Those are the main areas that I would improve.