BMC TrueSight Reviews

I like the deep-dive detail and end-user metrics data. The synthetic monitor is the best one. The best point of the new one is that there's no need for configuration. You can inject the Java script and start to change major developments in the application. This is a good approach, and we received all the data using this.

I would like them to improve the deep-dive details, tracing, and data agents in this product. We have EUEM, an end-user experience monitoring appliance. This one's quicker than the current one, and reporting side and filtration side are very bad. 

There are many details we look at and explain what we receive information in the current one, but we cannot have historical data like we do with EUEM. We cannot have a powerful point to look for specific traffic from a specific application and a specific browser. We don't have it in the new one. The current BMC also needs to add the thing that control versions.

I have been using BMC TrueSight Operations Management for six years.

BMC support is very good, and they always find solutions. They can give you a release back or batch it if somebody needs assistance. This is a good thing for BMC support. BMC support is very good, and you can get the full journey if you have the full solution. 

BMC TrueSight Operations Management has a module covering all the applications and search, the website hardware utilization, and the traffic and storage. You can get all the details, and it will be better if you have different websites. You have the full journey and no need to bother the tool itself.

The initial setup is straightforward and easy to implement quickly. You can receive all the data, and you can have a lot of dashboards covering all the details like how much traffic, the OS, the federal ID, client ID, and location. If all of this is the same, you can create tables, dashboards, server ID, and client ID.

I would advise potential users to try to get TrueSight Infrastructure Monitoring and synthetic when implementing BMC. Then they will have a very powerful solution. The main point is that it's the manager of managers. It would be best if you highlighted this, and BMC can integrate with all monitoring solutions. They will have only one screen to show all. That is the multiple monitoring application.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give BMC TrueSight Operations Management an eight.

We use it for business service and infrastructure monitoring. We use the full gamut of utilities from them and monitoring in the platform.

We don't use APM. We used to. We line-item nixed that for various reasons a few years ago. We also don't use the ITDA, their next-gen log monitoring tool. So we're truly just within the TSOM interface, as well as doing synthetics. That being said, the Knowledge Modules that BMC brings to the market are what make the implementation across our varied infrastructure and applications. It's critical to have those Knowledge Modules. If we had to write things ourselves, or to use a more generic monitoring environment, and then build additional scripts on top of that to monitor the Kubernetes of the world, or the WebLogics of the world, or the Oracles and SQLs of the world - if we had to write scripts ourselves to bring back particular monitoring components and performance metrics and so on - that would be a heavy burden that would keep us from implementing. We don't often run into something that we haven't been able to monitor. It's just a matter of getting people to the table to tell us what they need.

When it comes to incident management, we get most of our data from TrueSight, log data, because we don't use the ITDA interface. It would be an effective interface, but for logging we go to our SIEMs, since we're already pumping data to another system there. But TrueSight definitely gives us a view into the health of our business services, which is our primary goal for implementing monitoring.

We try very hard not to use event management. What I mean by that is that we do not have a typical NOC. We don't have ten people staring at screens and then escalating as necessary. Along those same lines, we don't spam our incident management environment with events from TrueSight. With a lot of customers I've met over the years, that's essentially the old school way of doing things. Instead, we create events that are truly actionable. If we don't have an actionable event, we don't create it. We use their baseline technology to ensure that we're only sending items that are either about to have a problem or have passed the threshold of having a problem. If you're talking about typical event management, where you create an event and it gets forwarded to some other system, there's a notification about it somewhere else - the whole ITSM cycle - we don't use it for that. We use it for creating smart events that create alerts directly to the teams responsible. As I described before, we have many distributed teams rather than a centralized NOC.

In terms of TrueSight helping to maintain the availability of our infrastructure, it's an interesting question because of our distributed systems. We have 8,000 hosts across about 40 different teams, and we have 600 different applications that we run. For those critical tier-one apps, teams are highly involved in their day-to-day operations and watching them very closely. Having those two things - the actionable alerts and the ability to see what the health of their system is at any given time, and to be able to check it against what normal looks like for those applications - gives the teams that use it in such a manner the information they need to be confident that their availability is as it needs to be, or better. As far as a hybrid environment goes, we have our own hosting environment because we are the cloud to our clients. So we're not necessarily in that situation. We don't use assets other than what's in our hosting environment.

If, in the past, one of our biggest problems was just plain old infrastructure incidents, basic availability incidents where a server or an application, an interface or an endpoint, may not have been available and no one noticed it until some downstream, business end-result brought it to our attention, we've essentially eliminated 90 percent or more of those. It has been at least three years since we've done any numbers. But at the time, we might have had ten to 15 Sev-One incidents a month. When we last measured it, we were down to one. That was within a couple of years of implementing an enterprise monitoring strategy.

As for root cause, when a team is engaged in monitoring to its full extent, we're usually able to get to root cause pretty darn quick. For example, if a team has many servers that could potentially be impacting an application or a business service, tracking something down across those multiple servers and multiple owners could be really tedious and time-consuming. It would be on the order of hours, or at least many minutes, depending on the scope of the issue. With well-implemented monitoring, for our Sev-One apps, they're able to get to the solution almost immediately. If we have monitoring set up properly, the actionable event will tell them precisely where a critical component has failed and they can resolve it. Where it's a different type of incident that we might not have a particular monitor for, they're able to use the performance data, availability data, and other related alerts to get to their issue much faster than they used to. Having a good monitoring implementation has made a world of difference to our operations teams. It's so much so, that if you think back five years, which is an eternity in the IT world, when there was a Sev-One incident back then, someone would walk around tapping people on the shoulder all over the floor. That was very time-consuming. But now they're able to collaborate quickly and say, "It looks like this is the problem right here," in a well-monitored environment, and get right to the root cause.

It's helped our mean time to remediation, and I'm being conservative here, by about 70 to 80 percent. That's an absolutely huge impact.

We have many operational teams, and for any given team their requirements are different. One team is more reliant on infrastructure monitoring, because they are processing-heavy. Another team might be more reliant on endpoint monitoring where we're ensuring that the third-party endpoints they rely on are up and available. Another team may have fairly immature applications, so that they would rely heavily on log monitoring to catch all the errors that may come up. From a consumer-function standpoint, there isn't any feature that stands out. They're all important because all of our consumers are important. 

From an administrative standpoint, what stands out in TrueSight is the ability to implement quickly. When they have a requirement to monitor something, we're able to turn that on quickly in their environment. We're able to set up new apps within a day. Most of the work in monitoring is working with the teams, evangelizing, educating, and making sure that they're bringing their smart requests to the table so that they get visibility into their business service. If the implementation wasn't as easy as it is, it would hinder and probably decrease the adoption of monitoring. But because we can turn requests around pretty quickly and adjust things as teams need adjustment for their different release schedules, administratively, we're able to respond and keep pace with the business and the technology that they're implementing. That is a critical function for us.

We've been using TrueSight Operations Management for almost six years.

Stability is one of those areas of identifying challenges with TrueSight, areas that I'm not entitled to share at this point.

We've been able to implement all the hosts that we care to implement on a couple of servers, with minimal maintenance. We don't use their high-availability solution. We don't really require it because the underlying infrastructure is relatively robust. We haven't had any problems with the scalability. Had we been a couple of times larger, there would've been more to implement server-wise. 

The other thing about our implementation is that we send a lot more performance data to our implementation of TrueSight than the typical BMC environment might. We send everything server-side for analysis rather than keeping everything agent-side or emphasizing agent-side, as I've seen a lot of other clients do. I think the tide is turning. I think more people are doing what we're doing where we just push all the data for potential analysis. But we've been able to accomplish what we need without too much infrastructure.

They had an advisory board. We, as a group, and even I specifically, had been asked by them what they needed to continue doing. One of those was continuing to build out Knowledge Modules in various technologies. Some of the ones BMC has made available, we've implemented, and some of the ones BMC has made available don't impact us and we haven't implemented. But I've been in discussions where they say, "What do we need to do," and Knowledge Modules is one of those areas where they've made a commitment to continue adding to them, and we appreciate that.

When we first started, we did not have a monitoring program at anything resembling an enterprise-type level. We were at about 4,000 hosts and we were really not monitoring anything except for a few services. At that, it was bare-bones monitoring. We monitored, maybe, half of our environment at bare-bones.

We went on this journey six-plus years ago to have an enterprise monitoring solution that focuses on business services. One of the reasons we did that is because of the number of incidents that we had that really should never have happened. Now that we're a number of years in, and we've implemented monitoring and brought teams around in the direction of business service rather than just an executable's use of a CPU, we have much fewer incidents.

As a general trend, we're much more capable of seeing what's out there and monitoring what our issues are and taking care of it before the business incident occurs. I don't have any particularly recent examples where our monitoring was able to resolve an incident after it happened. Of course, I don't get notified when people say, "Oh, look, I resolved this," because it's part of their daily operations to find an issue and resolve it. So it's not necessarily a newsflash anymore for us.

It doesn't happen quite as frequently as it used to, but they continue to build Knowledge Modules, every time there are new products on the market. They need to create Knowledge Modules for the implementation to be enhanced. That's one of the key features of the Operations Management. That's definitely something that helps us take advantage of everything BMC has. They're not sitting on their laurels. They're building things out.

The complexity of our environment demanded the complexity of the implementation. More than half of the effort that we had in implementing monitoring was based on the way we did our program. We were basically starting at zero and bringing teams up to speed, evangelizing, educating, getting people onboard.

The implementation of TrueSight itself was just a software implementation. It had its bumps and bruises. None of us were versed in BMC software. There were some learning curves as would typically be expected for any application of this scope, magnitude, and impact.

We had an overall strategy of doing proofs of concept for various, widespread technologies. We took that success and did a wide-to-narrow type of advertisement. We told everybody what was going on and then we brought more specific people into the room and said, "These are good targets for you to implement." During and after that evangelizing and advertising, we started implementing tier-one applications as an onboarding effort. We did that in a deep-dive fashion where we would sit down and interview these teams and really come to understand what makes their business service tick. A lot of our evangelization effort was actually in changing the focus of operations teams to think from a business service perspective. That paid off in dividends later when people were more interested in monitoring the actual functions of their applications rather than just the infrastructure of their application. We've been able to change mindsets over the course of a number of years. The first two or three years we were doing implementations. That was when we did most of that work.

From there, we worked as much as possible to allow folks to implement their own where possible, rather than centralizing it, so that people could keep up with their own demands. We were somewhat limited in TrueSight due to some of the RBAC controls not quite being what we wanted as far as delegating out administrative privileges for implementation. But because we were able to turn requests around pretty well, that burden wasn't too heavy.

From tier-one apps, we kept going and kept educating, bringing people to the table. When new applications come to our company, we still reach out and educate new teams, bring them to the table and use the onboarding process we built and solidified over the course of the first couple of years.

During the first three years, we had two-and-a-half FTEs for implementation. That was for the full program, not just the TrueSight component. It included all those interviewees, all those educational components, all the training, etc. The full program. The actual pressing of the buttons was about half of that. Once you stand it up and start connecting things, it's a matter of administratively using the tool to execute.

Typically, our company builds knowledge for implementing infrastructure/operations activities like this from the ground up. We did not use a third-party. BMC was instrumental in our success in that they made resources available to us, implementation-wise as well as development- and support-wise.

The solution hasn't helped reduce costs in a measurable fashion. That's a measure that we wouldn't undertake. There might be soft costs benefits, such as 

• impact on the quality of life for operations folks
• our ability to show our clients that the services we provide to them are healthy
• giving the business teams, our relationship teams, the ability to speak intelligently, rather than just colloquially, about how our systems are running.

Life at our company as an operations person is nicer now because you have confidence that what you're doing makes a difference, that the business service that you're working on is healthy. The business is happier when we're able to talk to them intelligently and say, "I can actually show you that we've been up and successful." 

It has helped in our ability to work on smarter things rather than silly incidents. If we eliminate incidents, then we're doing better work. We're able to do the good work of business rather than the sad work of recovery. That's not only quality of life but it's also the ability to get things done. So I know that, at some level, we're doing more with less because of our monitoring. But we don't have any hard numbers from a monitoring perspective.

We're end-of-lifeing it now. Overall, the licensing costs of BMC are a challenge for us in that they're hard costs, whereas open-source monitoring has soft costs, where it's harder to line-item. It's harder to see the cost of implementation for other things. So that change of direction is taking place. It doesn't mean the cost isn't there; it's just soft dollars rather than hard dollars.

We looked at Microsoft SCCM. And, because we had a partnership with CA, we looked at their tools. There were a couple of other minor players we looked at which just didn't have the scope of what we needed to do, because of the breadth of technologies that we use. In the bakeoff, we came down to BMC and Microsoft.

It was a long time ago, so I don't know that it's fair to judge at this point, but from a monitoring perspective, the whole Microsoft suite really wasn't there. There was a lot of scripting. It was easy to identify that the administrative burden was going to be high in that implementation. Conversely, with the BMC stuff, out-of-the-box, administratively, you click and implement. That is one of our components of success, our ability to implement quickly. 

On the soft side, BMC as a partner was much more interested in our success than the Microsoft folks were at the time. It's very hard to quantify unless you're there sitting in front of them at the table and working with them, consuming their knowledge. It really is a great partnership.

BMC is at a critical point in redefining TSOM, how it's built. Anybody looking at BMC now needs to jump on the new version of TSOM and skip the current versions. I would wait until their new environment is ready. It will be containerized. Anyone implementing BMC can get used to the environment in a PoC but they shouldn't implement until their new stuff is out. I expect it to be that much different.

Make sure that you have stakeholder buy-in and that they are able to provide the resources with the correct knowledge to implement in a smart fashion. Everybody's definition of "smart" is going to be slightly different. We really hone in on the business service side to make sure that our business functions are healthy and that we're able to understand what's normal and what is out of normal. We work with the teams, even from the point that they're in development of projects, to make sure we're ahead of what's going on rather than reactive. But that means the buy-in of multiple teams: development, operations, support. That amount of effort requires stakeholders with decision-making capabilities to say that it's a priority for them.

We knew up front - and we've been able to validate our assumption - that monitoring doesn't do any good unless you are analyzing your business service for what are the critical components to observe. That's an educational effort and an implementation project. It's that upfront effort that will make your monitoring successful. Where we've been able to engage teams and teams have remained engaged, we've been the most successful in that. We took that to heart upfront, we made that part of our route to success, and we put the effort in. Our monitoring's been successful because of that. If we didn't do that, and we didn't constantly engage teams to make sure that they were aware of capabilities including the ability to give us feedback, and that we can implement quickly, we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't have advanced as far as we have. Most of that advancement was in the first two or three years, and we've just been riding that wave of success since then.

Keep in mind that most companies don't go from nothing to an enterprise monitoring solution; they go from one monitoring solution to another. But if there's anyone in the boat that we were in, where they are the size we were with no monitoring solution, they'll be in the pain that we were in. Implementing a good monitoring program, not just the tool, but a program around it, can make a world of difference to the operations teams, and subsequently to the business as well.

For those teams that are utilizing TrueSight, they don't rely on other monitoring environments. Some of those teams rely on those actionable alerts almost exclusively, and don't really use TrueSight's single pane of glass. We do have some teams that consume TrueSight and use it on a daily basis to ensure that they don't have any events, whether or not they've risen to the level of action. They'll also proactively look at some components, either business function components or infrastructure components, to ensure that they're working as designed and within the parameters of normal.

I don't think the functionality of Operations Management helps to support our business innovation. Our business runs forward and headlong into innovation, regardless of whether or not IT can keep up. We were never an impediment, other than cost. The way we run our overall IT environment is very open and flexible. Monitoring is a way for us to give business the confidence that what we're implementing is healthy, but it doesn't impact their interest in being able to implement what's new. They've always been able to do that and continue to be able to do that.

In terms of machine-learning, I mentioned above the baselining which, depending on how it's implemented, might be called machine-learning, but in TrueSight they just have a straight calculation-type of activity. We have other monitoring solutions that we're implementing as well, and that topic may be more applicable to them, but not in the TrueSight world. The TrueSight world is a straight application implementation. It's nothing exciting on that end.

I have to give our BMC partners a lot of credit for where they're planning to take TrueSight based on their roadmap, although it is speculative. I don't think the areas for improvement from us would be any different than anything they've already heard.

If someone were to implement the full suite of BMC products, you'd have to give it a nine out of ten. TSOM by itself, I have to give it a seven out of ten.

We are using it to monitor open systems and some iSeries systems.

TrueSight has helped to reduce IT operations costs.

The solution has also helped to reveal underlying infrastructure issues that affect app performance. The solution has application monitoring called Application Performance Management. It's an improvement on the old, traditional TMR. It's integrated within the TrueSight solution. It will notify regarding application performance and report issues with applications.

One of the valuable features is the integration of the monitoring and the Console access.

We manage our open systems. Using the TrueSight platform we can monitor server performance and notify the customers using the integrated ticketing for events. We can let them know if there are any issues with a server, or application, or database.

The solution's event management capabilities are a strong point for TrueSight. They are based on the previous BMC Event Manager which was very stable and pretty powerful. It was an excellent product.

One of the things that the TrueSight environment is missing is some of the HA abilities. The data collection server called the ISM doesn't really have the HA functionality or workload balancing. It was missing from the previous product as well. It's missing redundancy.

In addition, it needs some details such as auditing inside the product - there is no auditing for the policies.

It's pretty stable. TrueSight uses a major BMC product called Patrol, and Patrol has been around for many years. It's one of the best products and it's pretty stable.

In addition to the traditional Patrol Agent, BMC TrueSight added the predictive functionality so we can predict a trend instead of having a static threshold. We can let people know, in addition to what is happening, what is going to happen. We can predict that and have the ability to do a cost analysis.

BMC's technical support is pretty good. They do have ups and downs. In the past, it was very good but there was a certain period of time where they had support from overseas, from India. The quality of support was not as good as the traditional one, but I do see that it is getting better now.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. The documentation was pretty good. The deployment was not very buggy, and the Patrol Agent was pretty stable.

We deployed it ourselves.

We did a comparison with a different product on the market. We had a CA product which I believe was called Spectrum. We compared BMC with that and InSoft. We felt that the BMC product was much better than CA's product. We also had an HPE product in the old days, and BMC is a better solution.

We had BMC for a long time. We had multiple products which we compared, and BMC is a better solution, so we removed the CA product. BMC is better in terms of support. It takes fewer people to support, it's easier to configure, and easier to change the configuration. It's also easier to change the special settings. And it's easier to maintain.

BMC products are very good. All products have pros and cons. For example, all the enterprise monitoring solutions are not really set up for multi-tenancy. BMC products are very stable and the support is good, and the configuration, especially, is easier to do. I think it will come down in pricing, although the cost is not something I am not involved in.

We started using TrueSight in the early stages. Like every product, TrueSight, as a new product of BMC, was going to take some until BMC improved it, got all the bugs out, got all the features added. It's not perfect but I do see improvement. When a product is in its infancy, it will always have some issues. I do see BMC trying to improve that. It's getting better now. It's pretty stable. It's a very good tool for traditional open systems and mid-range.

I would rate TrueSight Operations Management at eight out of ten. It's not a ten, because, as I mentioned, it is missing some capabilities in HA solutions. In the past, we had load- balancing HA. Now, it has to rely on an external load balancer to achieve HA. 

But I have to say that my view is limited because we do not have the whole suite of BMC products. There are certain things we do not own, like automation and deployment. If we had the full BMC suite, I would probably give it a ten.

My customers use it to monitor their enterprise and define their services. With a lot of the AIOps features and things like Service Impact Manager, my customers are able to reduce their mean time to repair (MTTR). MTTR is very important for companies who are reliant on their critical IT applications.

Sometimes, a lot of customers, if they're not using the products, don't know that they have an IT issue unless a customer contacts them, and says “I've got a problem.” With TSOM, they are able to be more proactive. The IT department gets alerted more quickly, and sometimes, they can resolve issues before the customer even knows that there is an issue.

This solution helps our customers to reveal underlying infrastructure issues that affect app performance. It has good monitoring all the way from storage up to the servers. Now, all the things I'm seeing in the cloud are very good, as well.

A lot of the integrations with all the other BMC products are fantastic, because it has a great discovery tool which can model applications and integrate those into TSOM. Then TSOM, once an alert is detected, can automatically create tickets in the ITSM system, which is Helix.

Its event management capabilities are very open and flexible. I haven't seen a use case scenario with a customer that we couldn't actually solve the problem for, so it's really good. There are some interesting things that happen in an enterprise network (things that people don't normally expect), and the event management product is very flexible. You can solve problems as far as your imagination can go with it.

I would like to see a little more out-of-the-box event correlation and expanded AIOps type capabilities. Where you can train your artificial intelligence operations to be able to memorize an issue once you encounter one scenario, so if you encounter that same problem, you can get to the root cause very quickly.

It is very stable.

It's very scalable. It is horizontally scalable. Right now, I'm hearing good things from the product team that they want to do some things as far as vertical scalability, as well.

I really don't have interactions with support myself directly. Some people who work for my company, they do that. 

The technical support does a good job. I used to be a BMC consultant back until 2013, and in those times, the support was very good.

It does help reduce IT operations costs. A lot of times, people are doing things manually. They might have a network operating center where they just monitor screens all the time, so you can reduce labor costs. From a scale perspective, if they have thousands and thousands of servers in their data centers, you can determine which ones are more critical over the other ones and focus on the critical pieces, not the pieces which don't matter.

I have customers who use other products. Sometimes, they ask me to evaluate other products that they're considering.

I am working with one large company right now who is looking at the ServiceNow Event Management product, and it's a little immature right now. Therefore, I told them about that. There are also other products that feed into the ServiceNow product set which are very expensive and very difficult to implement. This is one place where I have made the recommendation of BMC, specifically over ServiceNow.

Understand your use cases. Take a look at the use case to product fit. I don't really recommend many other products. We are sort of committed to the BMC product set because it's good. We have a lot of experience with it, and came from a company who was acquired by BMC Software. The product manager for that company, April Hickel, she's done very well. She is the product manager for TSOM now. I know her, her innovative capabilities, and her whole team. I've been working with them for a long time, so I know not only that the product is good, but the roadmap is good, and the people behind it are very good.

If you have a good imagination you can solve anything, but you need the right tool to be able to apply that to.

It helps to minimize downtime of applications by enabling proactive monitoring.

• Wide support for monitoring
• Strong event management
• Service management capability
• Baselining (analytics)
• Easy to integrate other tools with it

Deployment requires lots of resources (servers). It has too many consoles. Pricing is very high.

No stability issues. We can make it stable by allocating enough resources.

No issues with scalability. We can increase resources vertically, according to growth in infrastructure.

Support quality is good.

Have not used any other product.

It’s bit complex.

Performance and Availability monitoring.

Putting all the infrastructure and application and various monitoring into a Service Context for Service Monitoring. 

Faster, more efficient, better views for the operators to view. A more centralized approach to managing the infrastructures. Improved app visibility features.

TrueSight Operations Manager is a combination of different components (applications) like Presentation Server, Impact Manager, and AppVisibility Manager and IT's Data Analytics, but it provides a seamless integration and a holistic view with Application and Infrastructure Health views.

It provides common administration, and a Single Sign-On Platform with RBAC, which eases the cross launch between multiple tools and saves the need to configure users for all the different components and improving monitoring views.

There are no broader areas of improvement. It would vary, environment by environment. As such, there are no outstanding bugs or defects that are not documented.

No. TSOM 10.7 is quite stable provided it is installed with the vendor recommendations, which are created by the experience drawn from customers and the complexity of the environment.

No issues with scalabilty. The customers where I have implemented this have ranged from small to very large. I have never faced any deployment challenges in any of these cases.

Excellent support from the vendor. Support technicians and developers are all available to help if there is an issue. Support cases are tracked and the resolution (of the same) is pushed to be done faster.

No, I have always worked with BMC Solutions for infrastructure and application monitoring.

Yes, the setup after the design of the solution was pretty straightforward. The vendor has a lot of free Webinars where they will explain the best practices to design a solution and the best ways to implement it. These guidelines can be used to build custom guidelines for the customer.

Implemented with in-house team, have been interacting with Vendor team as well with excellent expertise in Truesight Operations Manager.

I have not dealt with the pricing or licensing, so I cannot comment.

Not applicable.

It is quite an efficient tool. There are continuous improvements being performed to satisfy the customer needs, but like any other tool or automation, it has some issues.

TrueSight offers a global solution with possibility of end to end integration.

Monitoring applications and servers. We also monitor individual pieces of management software, like WebLogic.

Proactively monitoring 24/7/365 on all of our servers. This allows technical staff to focus on other areas and our operators can monitor the systems.

The tailoring of the knowledge modules has been particularly useful as I can streamline the agents to only report on critical events.

The knowledge modules could be more lightweight in size. At present, the installation packages can be quite large.

We utilize BMC TSOM to monitor our entire infrastructure and all applications that lie therein. Our infrastructure is hosted both in our datacenters and in cloud hosted services (AWS and Azure).

It has provided us with a single location to host all events to be viewed/monitored by our NOC. This has greatly helped them to streamline their processes.

TSOM's ability to consolidate alerts into a single location and provide filtering of alerts is great. It is very helpful to be able to apply rule-based routing to alerts as well.

• BMC's solutions for cloud monitoring (monitoring of AWS and Azure resources) are very poor in stability and customization. 
• BMC's online documentation is often incorrect or incomplete.