Broadcom DX Application Performance Management Reviews

Monitoring of customer applications. 

It has performed well. I won't necessarily say better than other solutions, but there's more focus because of the customer applications. 

A good example for us is Hurricane Irma. We have service territory that was impacted and our executive dashboard for APM was up and everybody under the sun was watching that, and keying off of that, for issues that were popping up, because we were performing storm restoration.

The executive dashboard we created gives a lot of visibility out there, so from that standpoint if somebody sees something go red and they say, "Hey, what's going on?" we have to be on our toes. There's no working on something for a little bit before someone knows.

But having said that, there's a lot of flexibility in being able to see stuff in those customer systems, which is vital for us.

The ability to have anything we want scripted feeding in there, and to add to it fairly quickly. So if we do see something that we need to change or monitor, we need to add something, we're able to get those in pretty quickly. 

For example, finding something that's not performing well on one of our applications. We had one not too long ago where we simply didn't have a threshold on something, something we hadn't seen before. We found it, and then were able to get in and put something in pretty quickly. So now we're prepared for that situation in the future. 

The APM SQL feature doesn't perform like we would like it to, and we actually have some open cases that are working through that. I know that's a new feature with 10.5, so it may be one of those things that gets a little better. But I would like to see that improved because, although it's not a major problem, we feel like it should run faster.

The stability is very good. We recently upgraded to 10.5, and the performance has been fantastic, especially since the upgrade. We had a few minor things before the upgrade, but once we've upgraded it's run like a champ.

No issues with scalability. We're able to add stuff to it without any issue. We've got a decent license count so there are no issues there, it's been easy.

We have used tech support. I would evaluate it as so-so. Part of the issue is, I've got some seasoned guys. Tech support is always saying, "Hey, what's with these log files," and the like, and we feel that we waste some time upfront because we've already checked A, B, and C. It's like if you called tech support, and they say ,"Well have you turned your computer on and off?" "Yes, I've done all that!" It's like that. We go through some stuff that we feel if we skip that we might get to some resolution faster.

With version 10.5, we went to it fairly early and we discovered some things that broke some things in the past. We did get through those. But I would say the bigger issue is, if we're at point A and we want to get to D, we want to skip B and C.

We do get the right person when we call, there's not really any run around.

And we have, I don't know what her title is, a service manager, and we meet every couple of weeks to review all the cases, and I feel that if something's not getting addressed she'll help us escalate that or push it forward. It's just some of the upfront stuff that gets a little frustrating at times.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor have to do with the issue that vendors say, "Yeah we can do this, yeah we can do that." I want to see examples of where you did that. And I want to understand how hard it is to get to that point. Because a lot of times, sure, they can do that, but it entails all of this work, or all of this customization and maintenance and, at the end of the day, it may be a huge issue to get to that point. I want more transparency. 

And if it is that that additional work, that may be okay, but we want to know about it ahead of time so we can plan for it.

Brand may be important, but sometimes companies get lazy, saying, "We're so and so," and they don't feel they have to work as hard. I know there's a vendor that we had - not CA - but it was just, whatever you're doing, you know that you're going to have problems. They are a big brand name and they just do a poor job. So that's why I say the brand doesn't always make that big of a difference because it's more about your ability to come through and deliver on your commitments. And deliver on your commitments, meet deadlines, without us having to do a fire drill every day.

I give CA APM a nine out of 10. It does a really good job for us, the infrastructure seems pretty easy to maintain. We had to do an upgrade so that obviously threw a bunch of work in there but, outside of that, it seems to run pretty smoothly so we're not spending a bunch of time dealing with that. We're able to work with the monitoring functions of it and set some things up. 

The Team Center piece seems to be working really well now, we're starting to implement some of that so it's taking advantage of some functionality that was already there but didn't really work that well. We're starting to use that and add some more value to our customers.

Based on those things I'd give it a little bump up. It works well for us, gives a lot of visibility.

I would recommend it to a friend. I would just say make sure you understand your environment, and compare your environment to somebody that's already implemented, to understand some of that work. Get the right reference call.

The use case is for crash analytics. We want to know what went wrong, and what is the area in my code that I can improve on.

In terms of performance, we are still evaluating it, but so far so good.

The time to deliver, time to market, is the greatest improvement.

The crash analytics, and that it goes down to the level of code where it shows, "Hey, this is an area you need to check."

Custom dashboards.

It's pretty stable. I'm not the one who configures it but I'm the one who drills down to the reports and checks what went wrong. It's good.

I'm not sure because I'm not the one who configures it.

No support tickets so far. That means the product is stable.

We had a presentation from CA and everybody from the product management side was impressed by it. We are still evaluating it.

When my company is investing in a vendor the criteria are

• brand
• reliability
• scalability.

I give it an eight out of 10 overall because I don't see custom dashboards. Plus, some of the stat analysis features that were explained are not that easy to use. 

Otherwise, it does what it's supposed to do.

I would say go ahead and at least give it a try.

We are using multiple functions like monitoring applications, files, storage, and DBs.

Performance is very good.

It helps us change from being being reactive to proactive.

We're working in a huge environment. It enables me to cover all functionalities and monitor all selected elements over multiple servers, multiple applications, multiple IT resources, and to cover multiple users.

There are some issues, including required additional features. But we're not prepared to list them here.

It's stable, it's good enough.

It needs more features, more performance, especially in a huge environment.

We get support from Future Systems, a CA partner. The support is good. Sometimes the response is quick. We are working in a bank, a huge bank, with multiple branches related to the main center. When there is trouble, when there are problems, a business interruption, we need fast support, immediate support, strong support. Future Systems, in our opinion, covers this, but only somewhat. We would rate them "good" to "very good."

Our CA partner suggested we use this product.

Somewhat easy, but some steps were more difficult. It's easy if you install using the default settings. When customizing the installation, you need multiple scales and more knowledge.

When choosing a new vendor the important things for us are the product and the company's reputation.

It's not a 10 out of 10 because the list of features we need. We're always looking forward. But it does cover most of what we need.

We recommended this product to two other banks and both purchased it. We have also recommended it to several other banks.

Primarily the product is used for monitoring the Business critical banking applications of my Organisation like Internet Banking etc.

In our organization, the critical applications are being monitored with thresholds set for any malfunctioning through APM. Also, we have configured Dashboards which display any deviation of the application from normal. Further, the Tool is integrated with CA SOI, which displays the alerts at the Service level. Overall the Tools helps to detect any issue emerging with indepth analysis available for the resolution through APM components.

Presently we are making maximum use of this product for IBM Websphere monitoring with agents monitoring the MQ's. We are also using the java and .net agents for monitoring the respective applications. Introscope Reports and Dashboards provide business users a customized option to view data that is most important from their perspective. Along with Introscope, the CEM is being used for the monitoring of the Business transactions for defects and incidents.

Based on my experience with the product, I found two areas which can be improved on in future. Firstly, the APM upgrade procedure is a bit complicated with compatibility issues which can emerge like between agents and EM/Collectors. Secondly, the CA documentation/Knowledge Articles on the product can be improved.

The product is quite stable once the deployment is finished. Overall, the product properly deployed is quite stable.

Scalibility is quite well defined for the product with proper Sizing sheet available for the pre deployment scenario and finalizing accurately based on the same.

On a scale of 1-5, I would rate the level of technical support a 3.5. The reason being as per my experience, CA is lacking in resources having in-depth knowledge of the product, but it is being improved over time.

The initial setup is not that complex. But eventually the complexity can grow, but not to unmanageable levels since the variety of monitoring it can perform is vast. The organization can go for as much in-depth monitoring as they require.

It was a vendor team implementation. The level of their expertise was good.

My domain experience is with CA Service Assurance Tools. I have worked with other CA products like CA Spectrum, eHealth, NetQoS, CA UIM (Ca Nimsoft). Hence this was my 1st preference and it stood by CA standards.

It's a detailed product which suits maximum client requirements.

We are using it for application performance management (APM).

For example, before each upgrade of critical mission application, we have the APM set for prep, and all administrators can do a stretch test, and they see how applications are working under the load. It is great, because they see which part of the code, network, or any programs on the database are slow. We are using it, not for productions, for the testing in pre-production.

We are using the web view for the displaying the data and interpreting the dashboarding for the customer.

The product fits its functions. The presentation layer is nice for me. However, what I would like to improve is its integrations with the dashboarding of other CA products.

It is very stable. We have not experienced any crashes. If we have any performance issues, we just edit some manager and we can continue.

The scalability is really fast. Though maybe it should be faster. Maybe it is still some point for improvement for the APM if CA would provide some docker installation, this would make it even faster. 

Because the docker container is a coached service, and if it will have a some performance issue, we will automatically deploy the new docker installation and a new docker agent to the endpoint and do everything possible without installation. 

When I catch the right Level 2 engineer on the APM site, everything is fine, and I would give them an eight out of 10. They are great. 

If you will ask me about the general Level 1 support of the CA, and I would give them a two or three out of 10 because it takes a long time to get to them to focus on the program. Also, it takes a long time to redirect to the right Level 2 engineer. 

The setup is complex. It is a little bit difficult to explain to our customers what APM is because we have problems to find the right people on the customer site. CA could provide a simple explanation for the technical customers.

AppDynamics.

Anybody can work with the APM, because this solution is so flexible.

Right now, it is the standard product for the application performance management RAR. There a lot concurrent solutions from different vendors. It is a really good, stable, flexible product, but there are no special features when I compare it with with the other solutions from the other vendors. 

It's for application monitoring and it's extensively used for application performance management.

It works very well and we can get to know how the application really behaves internally, and based on that we will to know who the culprit is and figure it out.

We have just started looking at version 10.5 and it has a lot of built-in features for a cloud platform. That is what we are really impressed with.

In terms of stability of our application, that is key, it really helps, APM really drives that factor.

It helps prioritize application performance issues. Through the stress test environment we really evaluate it. We are able to determine what the application requires so that we will provide it and take it from there.

I think the new version of APM is going to a new dimension. It really covers the cloud platform. They covered up and they abstracted the layers of the infrastructure and they're giving it an analytics tool as well. Instead of just putting monitoring in place, they are coming up with an analytics solution as well.

If they can come up with a use case of machine learning and artificial intelligence it would be even more useful.

Stability is quite good.

In terms of scalability, because APM is tightly coupled, it doesn't have the scalability as a built-in feature. Starting from version 10.5 it has a different approach for the scalability, while it grows, it really captures that way.

We have, pretty much, good support from them.

I was using this product even before I started with my current organization. I feel it really helps in the application strength, from an analysis perspective.

In application performance, it's the best one in the market. Go for it.

We are using it for application performance monitoring. We have about 2000 applications and mobile applications. We are even using it for applications in the cloud now. So, we are pretty happy with the product.

It is the easiest way to obtain metrics in order to understand the behavior of the application, and also, if the application and the users are working well. 

1. We are receiving feedback from the DevOps teams in order to improve the way they are building new applications. 
2. We are discovering how the user uses the applications and what their performance is with them.

It does not help prioritize application performance issues at the moment, but the application and the product are working well. 

I would like to see a mobile application for the dashboard or the performance.

It is very stable.

The scalability is very good, because we used to have only the latest applications and we are now moving to containers and the newest technologies. 

The technical support is responsive.

At the beginning, it was very easy. However, the fine tuning was complex. At the very start, we used a basic metrics. Once we used more complex metrics, it was hard to fine tune. In the end, it is easy to use. 

It is very useful for us. We are using a lot of their metrics and their features.

It is a monitoring tool used for business intelligence.

It is highly-customizable.

It alerts to application performance dips.

It has been used extensively in KPN's environment since 2013.

It is very stable.

Scalability is very good, because you can choose different amounts of agents.

When we were trying to restore historical data, we have reached certain limitations, which have restricted our historical view from being resized. Also, it change the data from one year into 200 days, historically. 

Technical support is excellent. If you opened a support ticket, you would get a reply within a few business hours. They call back and make themselves available.

Yes, I used a different company before, Dynatrace, who is a major APM player. I also used a bit of AppDynamics.

We switched because of efficiency and cost. I think CA APM is a very effective solution. 

It was complicated to build up an agent version that housed all the data needed. There are many varieties of agents for different environments. That is the hardest part, selecting the correct one. However if you have selected the proper agent that collects the data that you are interested in, after that, it is fairly simple.

This product was referred to me.