IBM Turbonomic Reviews

We typically use it for optimizing the performance and resource allocation of virtual machines.

It offers visibility and analytics for monitoring performance across our environment, starting from the application layer and extending down the stack to the underlying infrastructure resources. Specifically, it concentrates on optimizing memory and CPU resources as part of our focus on hardware and environment optimization, without delving into additional aspects.

There was a single project where it helped us reduce the size of hundreds of VMs. This represents the only example with which I am familiar.

It's important to note that optimizing the monitoring of our private cloud is not the primary function of this tool. It is specifically utilized for optimization purposes. We employ it for tasks such as trending predictions and VM utilization performance. However, for monitoring, we rely on a completely different tool.

It has resulted in cost savings, specifically at the infrastructure layer.

The primary features we have focused on are reporting and optimization.

I have been working with it for more than five years.

It has proven to be highly stable.

I haven't directly interacted with tech support, but based on what I've heard, the overall experience was satisfactory.

Maintenance is necessary, and one person is sufficient for the task.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We use it to optimize costs and resource efficiency across our environments and  present infrastructure change requests to the business.

We had a lack of knowledge about things at our product level, and Turbonomic helped us resolve that. From an integration perspective, it also helped us find connectivity between our gateway tool products.

When it comes to optimizing costs and resource efficiency, before Turbonomic, we would add big, expensive storage and scale up across the tenant. Now, we are able to allocate the resources we need. We can also justify to the business, based on usage, why we are going with those resources. We have all kinds of proof to explain to the business how we are scaling down.

The visibility and analytics into our environment’s performance, from the APM down to the infrastructure, help us illustrate and clarify for the business the types of infrastructure changes we are suggesting. And they give us approval. Although we can collect the same information from Azure, Turbonomic is very user-friendly, and we can also automate notifications.

Regarding policy implementation, that can be implemented by a skilled engineer in five to 10 minutes. But if that same task is assigned to a new engineer who is not familiar with Turbonic, he would have to reference the previous document and the previous policy. Implementing the same thing would take that new engineer 15 to 20 minutes.

I like the analytics that help us optimize compatibility. Whereas Azure Advisor tells us what we have to do, Turbonomic has automation that actually does those things. That means we don't have to be present to get them done and it simplifies our IT engineers' jobs.

The platform is continually updated with new features. If they would educate their customers to understand the latest updates, that would help customers be more satisfied with the updates and push them into their environments.

Also, there are a lot of features that are not available in Turbonomic. For example, PaaS component optimization and automation are still in the development phase. If they could provide those enhancements, that would be really great. For example, we are spending a lot of time on Azure Databricks, exploring it and trying to do cost optimization as well as setting up the policies. If Turbonomic could help us understand how much the Databricks CPU is using per instance or workspace, that would help us optimize it, scale it according to our business requirements, and decrease costs.

We have been using IBM Turbonomic in the cloud for the past year.

The stability depends on how you set up the policies and logic. In general, Turbonomic is stable.

It's scalable because we are hosted in the cloud. We can expand it vertically.

I'm an open-source guy, so I used a lot of open-source code to do the cost optimization through scripting. One reason Turbonomic was our first choice was that our on-prem team was already using it.

We have it set up in the cloud and on-premises. I wasn't involved in the initial deployment as it was already on-prem. We just expanded it to the cloud. That operation was very easy. We just opened the access to the cloud. That was it.

We have a test environment, so we apply things on the test environment and make sure our policies are having the proper effects and are working perfectly. We can work on an environment-by-environment basis.

There is not much maintenance involved, other than applying patches.

There are a lot of options available, but compared to other products, Turbonomic has many features. Other products are at a more beginning stage.

When you do your initial assessment, you have to understand your business needs and then choose the product.

We are in the healthcare industry and we use this solution for ensuring proper resource allocation for our virtual servers and our virtual desktops.

We use Turbonomic as a single platform to manage our full application stack, and having a single source of truth for application performance management is very important to us. The fewer places you have to go to make changes, the better. Having that available in a single pane of glass to make those changes makes it easier on our admins. Rather than having to go into multiple solutions to make changes, they do it all right there.

Turbonomic provides visibility and analytics in our environment from the application layer, all the way down the stack to underlying infrastructure resources. We don't use it as much on the application level as we do on the hardware and resources level.

This is a feature that's becoming more important to us. We're really starting to look at the analytics more nowadays and will in the future. It was not as important before but has become more so in the past year.

This visibility has definitely helped reduce our time to resolution. We have not quantified how much but it is due to having the visibility and the ability to monitor what's going on and make those changes in real-time. We just didn't have a baseline to compare and see how much it's improved.

With respect to any alerts that come up, it helps us to interpret those faster. This is something that is very important because it triages a lot of stuff that we don't have to then spend extra time doing, especially being a small team. It saves us at least a couple of hours per week.

Using this product helps us to reduce performance risk because it shows us where resources are needed but not yet allocated. Based on that, we're able to see whether those resources needed to be updated. In turn, that helps to limit application downtime or employees waiting for their jobs to get done.

It has definitely helped to reduce performance degradation. It helps us keep up with the changing environment and workloads that change over the course of days or weeks. Prior to this, it was all manual for us and we'd have to react. Now, we're able to be proactive.

This has also had a positive impactive on our applications' response time to SLAs. We're able to keep up and be proactive by fixing issues before the user even notices that there is a problem. This is important because it's great from a customer experience standpoint.

They never experience the problems they had in the past, where they would have to call us to say that their machine was running slowly, and then we'd have to figure out what was going on. Now, we know beforehand that they need additional resources, and many times, we're able to address that before they even realize it.

Generally speaking, using this solution has helped to eliminate resource constraints and it's helped us to understand what resources we need. In terms of that, we are able to modify our plans for the future concerning the acquisition of new hardware because we're able to satisfy the need with what we already have, rather than thinking we need to buy more. Turbonomic helps us to balance that out better, ensuring that we're not over-resourced in terms of hardware, and having resources sitting idle, which is very costly.

Turbonomic has helped our engineers focus on innovation because it has freed their time quite a bit. In the past, we had one person that would spend a lot of time trying to find where things were going wrong. This was precipitated by users saying that their machines were slow or not performing very well. Our staff would have to go in and figure out what was going on, then make the appropriate changes. Now, Turbonomic does that and our staff can focus on other tasks that need to be done.

The resource allocation features are the best for us. They have a lot of different features, but we had it at first in notification-only mode, or recommendation mode it may be called. In that mode, they would recommend what we should do, and then we would manually do it.

Once we realized that we could trust their recommendations, we set it into the automated mode, so it makes those changes on the fly for us. Especially during the pandemic, that really helped as we were scaling up our virtual desktops quite a bit. We almost tripled the number of desktops we had on there within the course of two and a half to three months.

In the automation engine, it is really quick to change things when it needs to scale up. However, scaling back is a little bit slower. Recovering resources when they're not needed is not as optimized as it could be.

I have been working with Turbonomic for approximately four years.

This is a very stable solution. Even when we have to perform upgrades, it's seamless. With other solutions, updates can sometimes be a problem, but with Turbonomic, it's been pretty easy.

Turbonomic is a scalable product.

We have about 280 servers and close to 550 virtual desktops being managed by Turbonomic. It is in a mode to increase resources as needed and then decrease them as the demand goes away.

At this point, we don't have any plans to increase usage. We have it covering all of the workloads that we need.

We only have two people that use it, and they are system analysts. They are in charge of deployment and maintenance.

The customer support has been very positive, although we've had very limited need for it. That said, whenever we've had to call in, they've been able to help us out very quickly.

One of the best parts about this solution is that there are so few issues that we simply don't need to use support very often.

Positive

We did not use a similar solution prior to this one. All of the work was done manually. We knew that our workload was increasing and the time spent on managing these types of workloads throughout our server stack was also increased. We implemented Turbonomic because we found it was a good way to free them up from a lot of that busy work.

Compared to what we were doing before, Turbonomic has given us full visibility. Prior to this, we had to look in multiple locations, and in some cases, we didn't have any visibility at all. 

The initial setup was very straightforward, and it was done within a couple of days.

Resources from Turbonomic assisted us with the deployment. They were very knowledgeable and were able to help our staff, who had never used the product before, understand it very quickly.

We have not measured ROI, although application performance has improved because we're not resource-constrained. We're not running into situations where our applications are failing due to a lack of resources, so it's helped us most with uptime and customer experience.

It has definitely helped in terms of CapEx because we've been able to avoid purchasing hardware that we originally thought we needed.

The pricing is in line with the other solutions that we have. It's not a bargain software, nor is it overly expensive.

I do not recall evaluating other solutions.

I believe that we use version 8.3, and we may be a couple of versions behind the latest.

Turbonomic has tools for optimizing and monitoring cloud-based environments, although, at this point, we use it mainly for our on-premises environment. We used it to help estimate what our cloud costs would be. Consequently, we realized that we were much better, at the time, not migrating to the cloud from a monetary standpoint.

Using the cost estimate to run our workloads in the cloud, we found 25% to 30% savings by staying on-premises versus going to the cloud. This is because our workloads are not optimized for the cloud. We'd have to retool a lot, which becomes very expensive.

The problem with moving is based on our application stack, rather than something that can be changed in Turbonomic. They saved us money in this regard because their estimates are very well thought out and very informative.

My advice for anybody who is looking into Turbonomic is that it's a great product. There are other options on the market but from what I've seen, this is one of the better ones. I'd suggest starting slowly when it comes to the recommendations. Make sure that you're verifying what their recommendations are and building that trust up before going into a more automated mode. Once it is automated, it can move pretty quickly and if you're not ready for it, it can cause some issues.

If somebody were looking into Turbonomic but already has a process automator and does monitoring, it would really come down to whether they are looking for better ease of use, or having an all-in-one platform if they currently use multiple tools. It's going to do a lot of the same tasks and they would have to do their own research to see what is better for them. I like that it gives that single pane of glass visibility, whereas they might have multiple vendors and multiple applications in their current use case.

In summary, it's a good product. There are things that they're working on and they keep adding new features, so we're happy to see that.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our use case: Planning for sizing servers as we move them to the cloud. We use it as a substitute for VMware DRS. It does a much better job of leveling compute workload across an ESX cluster. We have a lot fewer issues with ready queue, etc. It is just a more sophisticated modeling tool for leveling VMs across an ESX infrastructure.

It is hosted on-prem, but we're looking at their SaaS offering for reporting. We do some reporting with Power BI on-premise, and it's deployed to servers that we have in Azure and on-prem.

The proactive monitoring of all our open enrollment applications has improved our organization. We have used it to size applications that we are moving to the cloud. Therefore, when we move them out there, we have them appropriately sized. We use it for reporting to current application owners, showing them where they are wasting money. There are easy things to find for an application, e.g., they decommissioned the server, but they never took care of the storage. Without a tool like this, that storage would just sit there forever, with us getting billed for it.

The solution handles applications, virtualization, cloud, on-prem compute, storage, and network in our environment, everything except containers because they are in an initial experimentation phase for us. The only production apps we have which use containers are a couple of vendor apps. Nothing we have developed, that's in use, is containerized yet. We are headed in that direction. We are just a little behind the curve.

Turbonomic understands the resource relationships at each of these layers (applications, virtualization, cloud, on-prem compute, storage, and network in our environment) and the risks to performance for each. It gives you a picture across the board of how those resources interact with each other and which ones are important. It's not looking at one aspect of performance, instead it is looking at 20 to 30 different things to give recommendations.

It provides a proactive approach to avoiding performance degradation. It's looking at the trends and when is the server going to run out of capacity. Our monitoring tools tell us when CPU or memory has been at 90 percent for 10 minutes. However, at that point, depending on the situation, we may be out of time. This points out, "Hey, in three weeks, you're not going to be looking good here. You need to add this stuff in advance."

We are notifying people in advance that they will have a problem as opposed to them opening tickets for a problem.

We have response-time SLAs for our applications. They are all different. It just depends on the application. Turbonomic has affected our ability to meet those SLAs in the ability to catch any performance problems before they start to occur. We are getting proactive notifications. If we have a sizing problem and there's growth happening over a trended period of time that shows that we're going to run out of capacity, rather than let the application team open a ticket, we're saying, "Hey, we're seeing latency in the application. Let's get 30 people on a bridge to research the latency." Well, the bridge never happens and the 30 people never get on it, this is because we proactively added capacity before it ever got to that point.

Turbonomic has saved human resource time and cost involved in monitoring and optimizing our estate. For our bridges, when we have a problem, we are willing to pay a little bit extra for infrastructure. We're willing to pull a lot more people than we're probably going to need onto our bridge to research the problem, rather than maybe getting the obvious team on, then having them call two more, and then the problem gets stretched out. We tend to ring the dinner bell and everybody comes running, then people go away as they prove that it's not their issue. So, you could easily end up with 30 to 40 people on every bridge for a brief period of time. Those man-hours rack up fast. Anything we can do to avoid that type of troubleshooting saves us a lot of money. Even more importantly, it keeps us productive on other projects we're working on, rather than at the end of the month going, "We're behind on these three projects. How could that have happened?" Well, "Remember there was that major problem with application ABC, and 50 people sat on a bridge for three days for 20 hours a day trying to resolve it."

In some cases you completely avoid the situation. A lot of our apps are really complex. A simple resource add in advance to a server might save us from having a ripple effect later. If we have a major application, as an example, and to get data for that application, it calls an API in another application, then pulls data from it. Well, the data it asks for: 80 percent of it's in that app, but 20 percent of it's in the next app. There is another API from that call to get that data to add it to the data from application B to send it back to application A. If you have sometimes a minor performance problem in application C that causes an outage in application A, which can be a nightmare to try and diagnose those types of problems, especially if those relationships aren't documented well. It is very difficult to quantify the savings, but If we can avoid problems like that, then the savings are big.

We are using monitoring and thresholds to assure application performance. It is great, but at the point where our monitoring tools are alerting, then we already have a problem in a lot of cases, though not always. The way we have things set up, we get warnings when resource utilization reaches 80 percent, because we try to keep it at 70 percent. We get alerts, which is kind of like, "Oh no," but we can do something about it when the applications are at 90 percent. The problem is there are so many alerts and it's such a huge environment. Because there is too much work going on, they get ignored. So, they can work into the 90s, and you end up a lot more often in a critical state. That's why the proactive monitoring of all our open enrollment stuff is really beneficial to us.

You have different groups who probably use almost everything. We use it for sizing of servers, and if somebody feels like their server needs additional resources, we validate it with the solution. We have a key part of the year called "open enrollment", where we really can't afford anything to be down or have any problems. We monitor it on a daily basis, and contact server owners if Turbonomic adds a forward-looking recommendation that they are running low on space. So, it keeps us safe. It is easy to monitor the virtual infrastructure and make sure there is capacity. However, with the individual VMs, in production alone, there are 12,000 of them. How do you keep up with those on an individual basis? So, we use Turbonomic to point out the individual VMs that are a little low.

Turbonomic provides specific actions that prevent resource starvation. They make memory recommendations and are very specific about recommendations. It looks at the individual servers, then it puts them in a cluster. At the end of the day, it comes back, and goes, "I can't fit these on here. There's not enough I/O capacity." Or, "There's just not enough memory, so you need to add two hosts."

For implementing the solution’s actions, we use scheduling for change windows and manual execution. The issue for us with the automation is we are considering starting to do the hot adds, but there are some problems with Windows Server 2019 and hot adds. It is a little buggy. So, if we turn that on with a cluster that has a lot of Windows 2019 Servers, then we would see a blue screen along with a lot of applications as well. Depending on what you are adding, cores or memory, it doesn't necessarily even take advantage of that at that moment. A reboot may be required, and we can't do that until later. So, that decreases the benefit of the real-time. For us, there is a lot of risk with real-time.

You can't add resources to a server in the cloud. If you have an Azure VM, you can't go add two cores to it because it's not going to have enough processing power. You would have to actually rebuild that server on top of a new server image which is larger. They got certain sizes available, so instead of an M3, we can pick an M4, then I need to reboot the server and have it come back up on that new image. As an industry, we need to come up with a way to handle that without an outage. Part of that is just having cloud applications built properly, but we don't. That's a problem, but I don't know if there is a solution for it. That would be the ultimate thing that would help us the most: If we could automatically resize servers in the cloud with no downtime.

The big thing is the integration with ServiceNow, so it's providing recommendations to configuration owners. So, if somebody owns a server, and it's doing a recommendation, I really don't want to see that recommendation. I want it to give that recommendation to the server owner, then have him either accept or decline that change control. Then, that change control takes place during the next maintenance window.

Three years.

Because of the size of our company, earlier versions were slow. However, they rearchitected the product about a year or 18 months ago and containerized parts of it, so we could expand and contract. Performance has been good since then.

I've a couple of guys who support it. We upgrade six or seven times a year. We are upgrading fairly often, so we are very close to current.

We have one guy spending maybe three weeks of the year doing upgrades. The upgrades are easy and fairly frequent, but there are almost always enhancements with these releases.

There are probably 50 people using it now. There are a handful who use it almost every day for sizing and infrastructure. We have a capacity management team who uses it all day long, every day. There are also multiple cloud teams and application teams who have been given access, so they can use it to appropriately size and work on their own applications. We are in the process of automating that to get that data out to everybody. There are a lot of other key teams who have found out what we were doing, and are like, "Can we have access to it now? So, we don't have to wait?" We are like, "Sure."

The scalability is good. I don't see any issues at all.

We were initially on the high-end of their customers. We ran two instances of it for a while, just because there was a limit of like 10,000 devices per system, and we were significantly past that.

Just from a server perspective, we are running about 26,000 servers right now, where 97 to 98 percent are virtualized. One person can't get a handle on that. Even figuring out what direction to look, you need to have tools to help you.

The technical support is good. We actually rarely call them. We have done quite a bit of work with them. Because of the number of purchases, they provided a TAM to work with us. So, we have kept that TAM around on an ongoing basis. We pretty much just call them, and they handle any support issues. From a support perspective, it has been one of the better experiences.

If it stops doing its thing and moving VMs around, it will be many days before it is going to have any impact on the environment, because everything is configured so well. From that perspective, it is an easier application to score than if you have a VMware host crash and trap a bunch of VMs on it.

We started using Turbonomic as a replacement for VMware DRS, which handled the VM placement.

We knew we were having some performance issues and ready queue problems that we felt could be improved. We worked with VMware for a while to tweak settings without a lot of success. So, we saw what Turbonomic said that they could do. We tried it, and it could do those things, so we bought it.

From a compute standpoint, Turbonomic provides us with a single platform that manages the full application stack. When we originally started, we were primarily looking for something that would make better use of our existing infrastructure. Because it does a much better job of putting VMs together on hosts, we were able to save money immediately just by implementing it. At the time, we were non-cloud. There was a period of time where we just couldn't put anything into the cloud for security reasons. We have moved past that now and are moving to the cloud. This solution has a lot more use cases for that, e.g., sizing workloads for the cloud and monitoring workloads in the cloud.

It's incredibly easy to set up. It took a couple of days. You spend more time building servers and getting ready for it.

It gathers its own data from vCenter. It doesn't touch the actual servers at all. Same thing with the different cloud vendors. It looks at your account information. It doesn't actually have to touch the servers themselves.

As far as the product goes, it's not an agent based. It can gather information, and start making recommendations within two or three days, then better recommendations within a week. After that, you're good. It doesn't get much easier.

We did the implementation ourselves. It took one guy to deploy it.

My group built a couple of the VMs that we needed and installed it. It took a couple of days. As far as gathering information, you don't have to put agents on any servers or anything like that. You give a user an ID for vCenter, and we have multiple vCenters.

The open enrollment applications are all mission-critical apps. If they go down, then the clock starts ticking on its way to seven-digit sales losses. It helps us avert situations like this multiple times a week. We are constantly using it to watch and notify application owners. If we don't use Turbonomic for this, then what would typically happen is the node recommendations that they would get from Dynatrace would start showing them that there is latency in their app. If they started digging into Dynatrace, then it would come up, going, "I'm running at 90 percent CPU all the time. I better get some more CPU." Well, Turbonomic tells us two weeks before that happens, that, "We need to be adding CPUs." So, it has a proactive nature. There are a lot of other tools in play that are monitoring what is happening. For our managers, Turbonomic helps us figure out what is going to happen.

We use Turbonomic to help optimize cloud operations, and that has reduced our cloud costs. We have a lot of applications that we run which are very cyclical. Fourth quarter of the year, they get the crap beat out of them. The other three quarters of the year, they are not used a whole lot. Without Turbonomic, would it be appropriate for the application to get resized nine months out of the year. Probably not.

It has helped save cloud costs by seven figures.

The tool itself is not free, but it's easily a positive ROI. It's hard to measure the benefit of just doing the DRS and optimizing our virtual infrastructure. I just can't stress enough how much it does such a better job of stacking VMs onto a set of ESX infrastructure. If you're using Turbonomic and looking at a cluster, you will see pretty much even utilization across a set of hosts. If you let VMware manage it, you will see one host at 95 percent, then another at five percent. Everything is running fine, and that's all they care about. However, if something starts going wrong on the host that is running at 95 percent, then you may see some degradation, just like rats leave the sinking ship trying to get out through that 5 percent host. Because it does a better job of balancing things, it utilizes infrastructure better, so you have fewer servers to host the same amount of VMs.

We have probably reduced our server purchase by a million dollars, just having Turbonomic manage the VDI infrastructure. Before they were static, so they just put an X number of VMs on each host, e.g., there are 70 VMs on that one, then it goes onto the next one. If we saw hotspots, then we would manually try and move a VM or two around.

We are using Turbonomic now to manage that and the supercluster feature that lets us migrate across clusters, which is really key for the VDIs, because we had infrastructure that wasn't well utilized 24 hours a day. So, we were buying lots of extras. The reason for that was we have developers in India, tons of people offshore, and people in the Philippines. As those people come and go, the utilization of different clusters shifts radically. So, if you're trying to have enough infrastructure to manage each cluster individually, then it takes a lot more than if you're managing it as a whole. That is one of the things that we use it for.

When we have expanded our licensing, it has always been easy to make an ROI-based decision. So, it's reasonably priced. We would like to have it cheaper, but we get more benefit from it than we pay for it. At the end of the day, that's all you can hope for.

We paid for our TAM, but I'm sure it's embedded in the cost. However, that's optional. Obviously, you can do it all yourself: Open all your own support tickets and just send in an email to your TAM. Our TAM has access to log in, because she's set up as a contractor for us. So, she can actually get in and work with us.

There weren't a lot of other options available at the time, but we did look at three others. I know there are other companies on the market. I don't remember which ones were competing with it at the time. There was only really one other in that space at the time, and there's a bunch now. Then, VMware was there competing as well, saying, "You just don't have it configured right. We can do better," but they really couldn't.

The model behind the scene that Turbonomic uses to make decisions just has a better way of balancing resources. It considers a lot more factors.

We use other tools to provide application-driven prioritization, to show us how top business applications and transactions are performing.

Unfortunately, a lot of our infrastructure in the cloud is still legacy. So, we can't make full use of it to go out and resize a server, because it will bring the application down. However, what we are doing is setting up integration servers now. This puts a change control out to make the recommended change and the owner of the server can approve that change, then it will take place within a maintenance window.

We don't manage resources in real-time. Most of our applications just don't support that. We don't have enough changes required that it would be mutually beneficial to us, so we aren't doing that yet, but we're headed in that direction.

It would be a big stretch for us to actually use Turbonomic to take resources away from servers. Our company has a philosophy, which was decided four or five years ago that the most important thing for us is for our applications to be up. So, if we waste a little money on the infrastructure to bolster applications when there is a problem, that is okay. We even have our own acronym, it's called margin of error (MOE). Typically, we are looking to have at least 30 percent free capacity on any server or cluster at any given time, which is certainly not running in the most efficient way possible, but we're okay with that. While we may spend three million dollars more a year on infrastructure, an hour long outage might cost us a million dollars. So, if there is a major problem with it with big performance degradation, then we want to have the capacity to step up and keep that application afloat while they figure out the issue.

It projects the outcome of if you are going to move from one set of infrastructure to another, then it will make a recommendation. For example, if I'm moving from one type of server to another type of server where there are different core counts, faster cores, and faster memory, then it will tell me in advance, "You need fewer resources to make that happen because you are moving to better equipment."

Biggest lesson learnt: What you should do is the obvious, it is just difficult to get people to do it. You need to have servers grouped and reported up to an executive level that can show the waste. Otherwise, you are working with server owners who have multiple priorities. They have a release that's due in two weeks which will impact their bonus at the end of the year, etc. If you hit them up, and go, "Hey, you're wasting about a thousand dollars a week on this server, and more on the others, so we need to resize them." They don't care. On an individual application or server basis, it's not a big deal. However, across a 26,000 server environment, $10,000 here or there pretty becomes real money. That is the biggest challenge: competing priorities. You have one group trying to manage infrastructure for the least possible amount while getting the best performance, and you have other people who have to deliver functionality to a business unit. If they don't, the business unit will lose a million dollars a day until they get it. Those are tough priorities to compete with.

Build that reporting infrastructure right from the beginning. Make sure you have your applications divided up by business unit, so you can take that overall feedback and write it up when you are showing it to a senior executive, "Hey look, you are paying for infrastructure. You are spending a million dollars more a month than you should be."

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10). It is a great app. The only reason I wouldn't give them a higher rating is from a reporting standpoint. That's just not their focus, but better reporting would help. We use an app called Cloud Temple with them, who is actually a partner of theirs. Turbonomic will tell you reporting is not what they see as their core competency, and they are going to take actions to optimize your environment. However, at the same time, they have done these partnerships with another company who does better reporting.

Initially, our use case was to reduce cloud spend. But Turbonomic is much more than just a reduction-in-cloud-spend tool. As we went on, it became more about optimizing applications and making sure that they function as expected, while reducing the cost of cloud resources. It became a question of how we make applications function properly, at speed, with the best cost possible, and without creating any risk for the application itself.

Turbonomic has shed light on processes, on how applications actually function for people. The folks in the IT organization still tend to build large, to oversize things, to make sure that their applications perform properly. Turbonomic sheds light on what could be a more efficient application and deployment.

We use it in a multi-cloud environment.

My favorite part of the solution is the automation scheduling. Being able to choose when actions happen, and how they happen, whether that be through an approval process during the workflow, or whether it be someone executing it on a weekend because they're working in their own environment.

We don't use Turbonomic for FinOps and part of the reason is its cost reporting. The reporting could be much more robust and, if that were the case, I could pitch it for FinOps. You might say that's a weakness, but it's not what it's supposed to do.

If it had the reporting, it would be a 10 out of 10.

I've been using IBM Turbonomic for four years.

Since we moved to the SaaS deployment, I haven't noticed any issues. About five years ago when I started evaluating it, there were some on-prem issues, but not with the SaaS solution.

Scalability is not a problem. If you need more, just buy more licenses and it expands. They monitor that and expand your instances. It's not something you need to worry about.

Their tech support is very responsive. They are part of IBM and not just Turbonomic anymore, so they've grown exponentially over time. But I found, in working with their engineers on the tickets we submitted, that they were very responsive, getting back to us as quickly as they could on the challenges we were having. They have been helpful.

Positive

We would go quarter-to-quarter and say, "Okay, go optimize our application environments." We could use Azure Monitor or a couple of other tools that aren't nearly as robust, and without knowing the impact, other than what Azure Monitor gives you. But Azure Monitor, which doesn't do memory metrics, would tell you, "You can reduce size by doing this," but maybe memory was the problem. Turbonomic is much more robust. Before using it, we were doing things in a very manual way. 

The way I got Turbonomic through the door was by saying, "You want to have your entire staff clean up the cloud every quarter?"

The initial deployment is very straightforward. The Kubernetes stuff was a little beyond me because I'm not a Kubernetes person. But once we got somebody who knew Kubernetes involved, it was pretty straightforward. It takes less than a few hours and that's for an enterprise. It can be done very quickly.

We started with the solution on-prem, but I quickly moved it to the SaaS model because with on-prem there's a lot to manage. It's a Kubernetes cluster and you need a Kubernetes administrator. You have to have rights to it. There are a lot of other moving parts when you manage it yourself. Once you move to a SaaS-based solution, the burden of keeping the product upgraded and up to date is on Turbonomic. I don't want to manage updates and patches.

With the SaaS solution, there is no maintenance on our side.

Our internal resources worked with the Turbonomic team. After that, I turned over the application to the team that is going to be supporting the applications, because I have no insight into applications. That's not my role. Turbonomic is meant to be in their hands, not mine.

There were three to four people involved initially. Once you get it installed, you start bringing in your DevOps engineers to have them understand it, and they'll work with the application support people. 

The team grows as large as it has to, depending on how many application teams and DevOps engineers you have. People can manage their applications or they can manage multiple applications. You can divide it up, so the teams vary in size. But it's always going to land as close to the application as it can, to get the right people to make the right decisions. If you're a very large organization, you don't centralize the product. It doesn't work well that way.

Everybody tells me the pricing is high. But the ROIs are great. Like any software, if it sits on a shelf and no one uses it, it's a waste of money. If you implement it and do the right things before you start using it, the ROI is very fast. And then you can justify the cost, because the ROI is very quick.

We had a couple of hiccups, but we planned for about a nine-month ROI, in the course of a three-year plan. If you put the resources into it and you dedicate the time to it, then ROI is very attainable. If you just let the product churn and tell you what's going on, and don't do anything, then you don't get ROI and don't actually reduce your cloud spend.

I looked at CloudHealth, Cloudability, and one other. We went with Turbonomic because of the intelligence engine. It uses AI to make determinations on data that's coming in at a faster pace than humans can comprehend. People can't monitor a thousand VMs and keep track of them on a daily, hourly, or minute-by-minute basis. With Cloudability, it's not done as efficiently and it's not done with AI. It has cloud-native optimization tools, and they're not as accurate. Turbonomic provides you with accurate, almost up-to-the-minute, information about your application performance, VMs, databases, and storage performance at a much faster pace than humans could ever do. That's why I liked it so much.

Turbonomic does give you visibility into your environment’s performance as well as analytics, from the application layer all the way down the stack. But it does not give you as much as others do. More specialized applications, like New Relic, go much deeper, but with those products, those features are an additional cost. How much is enough is what it really comes down to. How much monitoring and in-depth analytics do you need? Some applications need much more and some don't. If a website is running fine, don't worry about it. In that case, you just need to know the up/down status and that's it. If you're running database queries and things are running slow, you might need deeper analytics. Turbonomic doesn't do that.

Whenever we have a specific application that we need to go into deeper, we will use New Relic or SolarWinds or the like; a dedicated application performance monitoring tool. Turbonomic does have the ability to target apps, but we're not quite there yet.

Educate yourself on the product, as well as on the process. The process is even more important than the product because people need to understand that you're going to be making some changes to the environment. If they're resistant to that, then you're going to have challenges getting Turbonomic to be useful.

You not only need executive buy-in and senior leadership buy-in, you also need your engineers' buy-in. If your executives don't buy into it, your engineers certainly aren't going to. And even if your executives have bought into it, you still have to get the engineers on board because there are all kinds of ways not to do work.

And you have to understand your own company's processes around how to make changes to an environment. What is your change control process? Can you make changes in dev, test, and QA without a change ticket? How do you do production? Do you, in fact, do production?

I would recommend doing something like a workshop where you look at all the applications you're going to point Turbonomic at. Get each team together and explain to them how it's going to work and how it benefits them, as opposed to: "We bought a new product. You're going to use it. Deal with it." People like to know how it impacts their lives and why they're potentially doing more work. In the long run, it actually becomes less work. It's just hard to get past that point. In the movie "Cast Away" it was really hard for Tom Hanks to get past those waves. But once he got past them, he was fine. It's something like that, but not as dramatic; it's not that you're trying to save your life. But you have to explain to people why there's going to be some upfront work: to save them a lot of work on the back end.

In terms of the solution's visibility and analytics helping to bridge the data gap between disparate IT teams, we're working on that. Implementing Turbonomic is a journey. It's not "install it, and then it does what it does." You have to learn it and integrate it into your environment and your workflows. It does shed light on infrastructure and application teams having to work together, and that's a good thing. Application teams generally don't like infrastructure teams because they don't give them enough infrastructure. Infrastructure teams think the application teams complain too much. Turbonomic says, "Here is what you guys are doing. And here is how to get it done right. Work together," and everybody will be happy. That's more of a "people challenge" and less of a technology challenge.

But the visibility and analytics have not yet reduced our mean time to resolution. The solution hasn't had any impact on our application response time and it's not supposed to. Turbonics is supposed to change your resources based on your schedule, and you shouldn't notice it doing anything, except for the downtime that an application sometimes requires. It should be seamless.

Similarly, when it comes to helping our engineers focus on innovation and modernization, it's a work in progress. That's hard to quantify. It's our role, as architects, to help people do their jobs better and have more time to do innovation versus fixing. We are definitely spending less time worrying about application performance, because Turbonomic takes care of that. But in terms of innovation, I have no way to quantify that. We have people learning it and using it, but are we innovating better? I hope so.

We did some digging into Kubernetes and the solution does show you some good insights there, and it may have come a little farther in that regard since the last time I was hands-on with it. It gave us good insight into what our Kubernetes clusters were doing. Since then, we have moved on to doing more IaaS-based stuff.

Overall, it's the best product for APM that I've seen.

We don't use the full functionality of Turbonomic because our company is subject to regulations around making those changes. Some of that functionality would require going through a change process. We've been using it more for heuristics and analysis on the right-sizing of our VMs and VMware.

At the resource level, Turbonomic has enabled us to right-size our converged infrastructure to a more appropriate level. Instead of using 12, we can use 10. It has been really good in helping us size the environment for our compute.

Another benefit is that it has helped reduce performance degradation. That happens at the application layer sometimes, and then a reset happens and everything is fine again. I would estimate it reduces performance degradation by 10 percent.

It has helped us streamline a lot of those applications. We're leveraging faster configurations on our VMs. Those systems that are being virtualized are operating with better peak performance whenever it's required, and that's what Turbonomic really does. It gives us insight into those peaks and valleys that we tend to go through.

The solution has also reduced resource congestion and starvation. For us, it's always a matter of refreshes. I like the forecasting tool that Turbonomic has where you punch in what you have today and it assesses the history of that setup. Then you can say, "I want to replace it with a snazzy, new compute/storage component," and it will provide a recommendation. That is a very good forecasting tool.

A lot of the features in Turbonomic are valuable. The placement features are really good, allocating the load of VMs between systems within a VMware cluster. The notifications saying, "This is a corrective action," even though some of them can be automated, are always welcome to see. They summarize your entire infrastructure and how you can better utilize it. That is the biggest feature.

It also offers hot-memory increases, whenever they're applicable.

In addition, it gives us visibility and analytics into our environment, to a limited point. It does SQL components and, likely, in the newer versions, it has more of that layer. But, we're using it at the VMware level. We have tie-ins to our Pure Storage, and we're using it for discovery of that, as well as of our Cisco UCS for compute. It does delve down into the infrastructure level, if you allow it to do so.

Those analytics are important for understanding, historically, what sort of load a system handles over a certain period of time. If you have a system that is running efficiently and fine, but there is a year-end or month-end or quarterly-end report that needs to run, Turbonomic allows us to anticipate our requirements. For example, when those reports come up, it might be one of those times when we need to bump up the memory and CPU for that cycle. Turbonomic is very good for that aspect, from the standpoint of productivity. It does a lot of recommendations for placement, although we don't enable that in our environment because it's controlled. But it has a lot of good features.

Before IBM bought Turbonomic we had already been using it for four years.

The stability has been pretty good. 

One thing of note is that we did go through an upgrade from one Turbonomic appliance to a newer version and, unfortunately, a policy that was created and that was meant to be kept disabled, was transferred over and enabled. That wreaked havoc on our VMware landscape. It started making changes to servers, such as memory-up and memory-down changes, and that caused a big kerfuffle.

Before IBM bought it, the support was fantastic. After IBM bought it, the support became very disappointing. 

When Turbonomic was under its own flag, they would hold our hands every step of the way. That included everything from proactive upgrades to the appliance, to recommendations, and best fits for us.

When IBM bought it, we renewed the product for one more year. When I had a license that had expired, I was having such difficulty doing anything on their portal or getting support on the product. Ever since IBM took it over, it doesn't look like we have been getting the support we used to under Turbonomic.

Negative

We did not have a previous solution.

I'm the one who deployed the virtual appliance, connected it to our vCenter, and did the add-ons for Pure Storage and Dell storage. The setup, back then, was pretty straightforward. The complexity came in when we started having to use policies and rules. That's where we got a lot of help from Turbonomic.

The full deployment from end to end, with policies, took just over a couple of weeks. We have under 10 users of the product.

I did the deployment of the appliance by myself while the configuration of the group policies and rules was done with Turbonomic's assistance. There were two of us from my company who were focused on the deployment and we had two or three individuals on it from Turbonomic.

I consider the pricing to be high.

We looked at one or two other solutions, but those would probably have been renamed or rebranded since then, just like Turbonomic.

My advice would be to come up with an agreement, in writing, that support on the product will have quarterly touch-point meetings to discuss what's new, what has changed, and what upgrades there are. Those quarterly touchpoints would be an ask, for me, if I had to buy the product again. For the initial deployment, I would recommend some sort of professional services engagement from IBM, just to make sure that you're utilizing it to its best potential.

If you're looking into Turbonomic but already have a process for optimizing your environment and for monitoring, I would suggest doing a comparison between what you have today and what Turbonomic can do. Do a like-for-like on the functions you use today and ask if Turbonomic does the same and whether it does it better. Also, you need to look into the licensing model. Be ready with those questions. You want to make sure Turbonomic will be a suitable replacement and not fall short because your current tool does more.

In terms of understanding when a performance risk exists, the solution does help to a certain point. It says "increase," or "decrease." But it doesn't give explicit information as to why. It doesn't say, "This system has been running hot for X number of days or weeks." Those kinds of details aren't there. It just provides a recommendation.

I would rate the potential of Turbonomic as a seven out of 10. I love the fact that there is slight automation, if you let it do that automation, and the whole forecasting piece is really good. It's a pretty good solution.

The product is looking at things in the cloud or in Azure and it gives us reports of things that it could possibly do in Azure, however, we mainly use it on-prem for our VMware environment. 

The use case for Turbonomic really began with us trying to reduce a lot of the costs, and a lot of the CPU, and RAM. We had an idea that we could possibly save some money, however, it was theoretical and something that we really couldn't put our hands on or touch. Turbonomic was the solution that really gave us a tangible way of being able to see what we could do and to see those changes made in an efficient manner while also having the reports behind it to back up the changes.

That, and the placement that it does in VMware, where it places machines where it best sees fit on different hosts, is how we use the product. 

We've been able to separate different applications into groups in Turbonomic and see how many resources they take. We can see what resources we need and which resources may need to be increased or decreased in certain places. The grouping and analytics enable me to be able to take everything back to my application owners and say to them "your application or your list of servers did this type of work in our environment." It really gives me an opportunity to be able to show a cost. I can show how many resources we're using and how many need to be used.

It's been a very good solution. The reporting has been very, very valuable as, with a very large environment, it's very hard to get your hands on the environment. Turbonomic does that work for you and really shows you where some of the cost savings can be done. It also helps you with the reporting side. Me being able to see that this machine hasn't been used for a very long time, or seeing that a machine is overused and that it might need more RAM or CPU, et cetera, helps me understand my infrastructure. The cost savings are drastic in the cloud feature in Azure and in AWS. In some of those other areas, I'm able to see what we're using, what we're not using, and how we can change to better fit what we have.

It gives us the ability for applications and teams to see the hardware and how it's being used versus how they've been told it's being used. The reporting really helps with that. It shows which application is really using how many resources or the least amount of resources. Some of the gaps between an infrastructure person like myself and an application are filled. It allows us to come to terms by seeing the raw data.

This aspect is very important. In the past, it was me saying "I don't think that this application is using that many resources" or "I think this needs more resources." I now have concrete evidence as well as reporting and some different analytics that I can show. It gives me the evidence that I would need to show my application owners proof of what I'm talking about.

In terms of the downtime, meantime, and resolution that Turbonomic has been able to show in reports, it has given me an idea of things before things happen. That is important as I would really like to see a machine that needs resources, and get resources to it before we have a problem where we have contention and aspects of that nature. It's been helpful in that regard.

Turbonomic has helped us understand where performance risks exist. Turbonomic looks at my environment and at the servers and even at the different hosts and how they're handling traffic and the number of machines that are on them. I can analyze it and it can show me which server or which host needs resources, CPU, or RAM. Even in Azure, in the cloud, I'm able to see which resources are not being used to full capacity and understand where I could scale down some in order to save cost. 

It is very, very helpful in assessing performance risk by navigating underlying causes and actions. The reason why it's helpful is because if there's a machine that's overrunning the CPU, I can run reports every week to get an idea of machines that would need CPU, RAM, or additional resources. Those resources could be added by Turbonomic - not so much by me - on a scheduled basis. I personally don't have to do it. It actually gives me a little bit of my life back. It helps me to get resources added without me physically having to touch each and every resource myself.

Turbonomic has helped to reduce performance degradation in the same way as it's able to see the resources and see what it needs and add them before a problem occurs. It follows the trends. It sees the trends of what's happening and it's able to add or take away those resources.

For example, we discuss when we need to do certain disaster recovery tests. Over the years, Turbo will be able to see, for example, around this time of year that certain people ramp up certain resources in an environment, and then it will add the resources as required. Another time of year, it will realize these resources are not being used as much, and it takes those resources away. In this way, it saves money and time while letting us know where we are.

We've saved a great deal of time using this product when I consider how I'd have to multiply myself and people like me who would have to add resources to devices or take resources away. We've saved hundreds of hours. Most of the time those hours would have to be after hours as well, which are more valuable to me as that's my personal time.

Those saved hours are across months, not years. I would consider the number of resources that Turbonomic is adding and taking away and the placement (if I had to do it all myself) would end up being hundreds of hours monthly that would be added without the help of Turbonomic. 

It helps us to meet SLAs mainly due to the fact that we're able to keep the servers going and to keep the servers in an environment, to keep them to where (if we need to add resources) we can add them at any given time. It will keep our SLAs where they need to be. If we were to have downtime due to the fact that we had to add resources or take resources away and it was an emergency, then that would prevent us from meeting our SLAs.

We also use it to monitor Azure and to monitor our machines in terms of the resources that are out there and the cost involved. In a lot of cases, it does a better job of giving us cost information than Azure itself does. We're able to see the cost per machine. We're able to see the unattached volume and storage that we are paying for. It gives us a great level of insight. 

Turbonomic gives us the time to be able to focus on innovation and ongoing modernization. Some of the tasks that it does are tasks that I would not necessarily have to do. It's very helpful in that I know that the resources are there where they need to be and it gives me an idea of what changes need to be made or what suggestions it's making. Even if I don't take them, I'm able to get a good idea of some best practices through Turbonomic.

One of the ways that Turbonomic does to help bring new resources to market is that we are now able to see the resources (or at least monitor the resources) before they get out to the general public within our environment. 

We saw immediate value from the product in the test environment. We set it up in a small test environment and we started with just placement and we could tell that the placement was being handled more efficiently than what VMware was doing. There was value for us in placement alone. Then, after we left the placement, we began to look at the resources and there were resources. We immediately began to see a change in the environment.

It has made the application and performance better, mainly due to the fact that we are able to give resources and take resources away based on what the need is.

Our expenses, definitely, have been in a better place based on the savings that we've been able to make in the cloud and on-prem. Turbonomic has been very helpful in that regard. We've been able to see the savings easily based on the reports in Turbonomic. That, and just seeing the machines that are not being used to capacity allows us to set everything up so it runs a bit more efficiently.

The way it handles updates needs to be improved. That would be one of the areas I would focus on.

I wish that the upgrades and updates were more easily accessible. Some of that is based on my environment and how my environment is set up. Due to the fact that we are in such a lockdown environment, I wish that it would be better or easier to perform the updates.

I've used the solution for about three years now.

It's been very stable and we've had no issues with it. We did have an issue with the update, however. Turbo was really, really helpful and just involved right away and we were able to get that problem resolved. That said, in terms of general stability, it has been greatly stable.

We haven't really scaled out with it. We realized we probably needed to scale back in due to the savings that we were able to do thanks to Turbonomic. It is scalable. Our environment is very large and it was able to handle all of it. It can handle scaling your environment out or back in.

We have about eight people on my team. We work in converged infrastructure server engineering. We handle VMware and anything inside of the infrastructure.

It is being used extensively. Our usage would probably stay where it is as the environment is changing a little bit. It will probably hold steady with where we are.

The technical support is excellent. If the problem gets too complex, I've been able to speak to somebody in development for help even if I've had issues with one of the updates.

Positive

We were using VMware beforehand. We switched due to the fact that somebody in the environment had used Turbonomic at a previous engagement or a previous location. We decided just to give it a try and it worked amazingly well.

The initial setup was straightforward. I worked with some engineers and they were really helpful and really kind. They guided me along the path. 

We actually deployed a proof of concept first, over a couple of days. Then we took the proof of concept and applied for a license and then just put it in an environment. The deployment process took a couple of days.

In terms of pricing and licensing, I wasn't involved too much in that portion. In terms of the licensing, I would say it's definitely worth the investment. Even initially, if it seems out of range, the cost savings will make up for it.

We did look at some other options. We had issues with some of the other options and they weren't able to do tasks as efficiently. Turbonomic had a different environment just for testing it out. Another coworker also had used Turbonomic, so we tested it out in the environment.

We looked at VMware, the cost of using some of the VMware products, and how much it costs to do that. I don't remember the names of the other products. I just remember Turbo was high on a couple of our lists and we reached out. Cisco had a relationship with Turbo so they brought them in and we decided to test it out.

I've been using Turbonomic as it moved from different versions for about three years. Right now, we're on the CWOM version of Turbonomic and its version 3.7. We're using it on-prem and we also are using Turbonomic for just cloud reporting.

Turbonomic would be one of the best in terms of application awareness. Just being able to see different applications and see their usage is great. 

I'd advise potential new users to do a proof of concept and try it. It's an excellent product and the level of savings, as well as the reports, will really give them hands-on experience in the environment to get arms wrapped around everything. It's an excellent product that has paid for itself.

For someone looking into Turbonomic that already has a process to optimize their environment and monitoring, it's a good idea to work with somebody in technical support to see if there's something that you could get Turbonomic to help you with. You should evaluate it for savings, test it out and do a proof of concept as well. Turbonomic is hands down one of the best products.

I'd rate it ten out of ten. It does a really excellent job of reporting, handling placement, measuring resources, and increasing or decreasing those resources. Overall the product just sells itself. It has been very helpful in the cloud and on-premise. 

We use Turbonomic for workload placement. We've leveraged it for workload migrations, so if we get a new storage array or a new cluster, and we need to migrate workloads over to it, we can set up a policy and let it just run along as it can. It is especially valuable with storage array migrations, which can be very time-consuming if being done manually.

The biggest thing that we leverage it for is the right-sizing of virtual servers. This is relevant for both hot-add, and during an improvement-maintenance window where resource reclamation of the virtual servers takes place.

Turbonomic provides visibility and analytics into our environment from the application layer all the way down the stack to underlying infrastructure resources. The app dynamics information is a little newer to us but we do have that information there. Utilizing it is a matter of getting the right teams within the consult to understand and essentially automate or utilize the actions that it's suggesting from an application perspective. This capability is something that's important to us as an organization, and this product is helping to show the value of that data.

The visibility and analytics capabilities have helped bridge the data gap between disparate IT teams, which is a never-ending work in progress. Better collaboration between these teams is definitely something that is important to me.

Our mean-time-to-resolution has been improved by the visibility and analytics capabilities that Turbomoic provides, although it is difficult to approximate by how much because it varies on a case-by-case basis. As an example, with the right-sizing feature, a lot of what it's doing is hyper-reactive. I wouldn't call it completely proactive, although it could certainly be in some cases. Essentially, it's providing resources before the app team even knows they need them. As a result, it's preventing a problem from ever happening.

This product helps us to interpret our data alerts and spreadsheets, which is something that's important to us.

With the help of Turbonomic, we are better able to understand where performance risk exists. A lot of it has to do with the automation that we have enabled on the platform. Performance risk isn't necessarily something that we look at every day, waiting for something to start blinking red and then manually addressing it. The real success is turning on automation and having it try to fix the problems as much as it can without human interaction.

Another thing that this solution helps us with is reducing performance degradation. Again, it's on a case-by-case basis and it's difficult to estimate how much it's saved us. In the past, where we were given proactive notification about upcoming work and were able to capture the baseline, and then watch the product handle it using automation, we've seen where it was successful and did show value. However, a lot of those situations may be happening every day or at least every week, and we don't have proactive notifications. This is because we're not day-to-day working with the end-users or business units. It all ties back to the infrastructure that we support.

This product is certainly helping to improve our applications' response time SLAs, although we haven't focused on establishing that baseline and understanding how much things have improved from that perspective. This is a very important aspect for us and if we had a baseline then it would help to show more value because we could relate the improvement back to Turbonomic.

One thing that we are able to assess is savings from an OpEx perspective as a result of right-sizing. We understand how much an administrator would charge back to the company per hour to troubleshoot a particular issue. Every time a right-size action is performed, whether it's giving more resources or turning down more resources, a ballpark estimate of how much time an administrator would spend troubleshooting, and ultimately providing those additional resources, is approximately 30 minutes. Those actions happen a lot, and we're able to estimate and capture the savings from an OpEx perspective by right-sizing in place rather than having an administrator perform those actions each and every time. We have a dashboard to show the value from an OpEx savings perspective with the automation that it's doing. Last year, for example, we had $188K in operational savings due to automation, and we have saved $16K so far this year.

In general, Turbonomic has helped to reduce our CapEx and OpEx. In terms of CapEx, the right-sizing of workloads ultimately gives us an increased capacity for additional workloads or putting the right amount of horsepower towards the workloads that truly need it.

Turbonomic has helped reduce resource congestion and starvation. It's a powerful orchestration tool and it gives us the platform where, if we did want to innovate in a way that we haven't before, we can leverage the platform to help us toward that. This is something that has happened before and it was able to help us to get there. It's another tool in the belt to help support these initiatives.

The right-sizing feature is the most captivating one for us. It helped in taking the emotions out of what people think they need, basing it off of real data, and providing them what they actually need. It's not really a special feature, but the support that we received from that team really helped us in our success. There were definitely some customizations that needed to take place to make it successful.

This is the most aware of our products, in terms of understanding all of the components from the top down. It is integrated with all of the different modules, all the way down to the core infrastructure. All of it is tied together and there are not many tools that can do that.

The reporting needs to be improved. It's important for us to know and be able to look back on what happened and why certain decisions were made, and we want to use a custom report for this.

Between the different versions and releases, it seems that reporting fell by the wayside. It seems like there was more in the past than there is today, which has made it a little bit more of a challenge for us to capture some historical information.

I have been working with Turbonomic for approximately five years.

This is definitely a stable solution. 

We have had some issues with downtime in the past, realizing it might stop running and we weren't made aware. But the stability's been fairly solid. Working closely with our account team, they understand how we use the product, and more often than not, encourage us not to run the latest version. They want to make sure that we're properly testing before we go to the bleeding edge.

There is value-added from the support team, in them knowing our environment, and what might be impacted by the upcoming upgrades.

This is definitely a scalable solution. We can manage multiple environments using a single pane of glass, which is something that I really like.

The last big update was to create a containerized environment, which laid the foundation for us to continue to grow with this centralized system. From our perspective, it seems scalable and we haven't run into obstacles that I can't overcome.

We have approximately 12 users.

There have been some transitions with the recent acquisitions that have impacted our account team and some of our technical people. However, we are happy with them.

Out of the different products that we oversee, they're one of the best relationships that we've had. They not only help us through problems but help us on an annual basis to reiterate the value that the product can bring to our organization.

I would rate the support an eight out of ten. There is always room for improvement. Nothing will ever score a ten out of ten, even if it is perfect.

The bottom line is that they're superior at the majority of everything they're doing from a support perspective. Some of the biggest hiccups were that a new version would introduce a new problem. For about a year and a half, we'd go to the next version and this very thing would happen. This left us chasing these problems and they kept coming back up. However, it seems that things have stabilized since then, which was a couple of years ago.

We use other tools as part of our operations, including AppDynamics to help with Application Performance Management.

That said, we have not used any other products that have the same capabilities as Turbonomic.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward.

There were some complexities added from our side in trying to make sure that this platform was most successful with the standardizations that we have in our environment. When Turbonomic would perform actions, in most situations, we're actually calling on it to run in-house developed scripts to perform the additional configurations required from that action. Since that has been taken care of, it's been great.

To clarify, the initial setup is simple but we brought some complexity on ourselves. To deploy it to the level that we're using now, it took between six and eight months. This was really taking our time going through non-production environments first, then production, turning on one thing at a time.

There were also scheduling concerns, such as having our maintenance windows every other month. This didn't give us much opportunity throughout the year to deploy, which is why it took several months for us to get fully implemented. Even today, we're still not using it to its fullest potential.

The product was purchased from reseller CDI and I recommend them.

We deployed it ourselves but received assistance directly from Turbonomic.

With respect to product maintenance, it's a fairly hands-off tool. 

We're trying to hand off some of the routine maintenance windows. A lot of the predefined actions are in there but it's a case of setting the window based on our approved maintenance times for reclamation of resources.

If it's a change that involves policy and configuration then the change will be by a senior engineer or someone a little bit higher, because the change can be disruptive if it's not configured correctly. Otherwise, it's fairly hands-off.

The team even considers it an employee at certain times. For storage migrations, as an example, tasks that we had an administrator dedicated to, such as moving workload after workload, have now been assumed by Turbonomic.

We started to realize value from the solution with our first right-sizing, which was probably between three and six months. At this point, we were able to reclaim resources in our environment that were not utilized.

ROI is not something that I am focused on but in general, I think that we see ROI in several areas. I base this on the improvements that I've seen in regard to application performance.

We've turned down VMware's vRSOps advanced suite, which is similar in its basic functionality. The problem is that they are behind and just not at the point where we see it being a replacement for what we're using today with Turbonomic. At the same time, vRSOps does have advantages.

The basic pro for VMware is that you have one vendor with one solution, which is a nice simplification. The cons are that the vRSOps group and VMware, in general, don't have support anywhere near the level of Turbonomic, and the functionality isn't necessarily there as an orchestration and workload placement tool.

Where vROps shows its value is from an operational monitoring and troubleshooting perspective. We have seen value in that aspect and in fact, this is why we still have it in our organization.

We are not actively managing workloads in the cloud but it is something that we plan to do in the future. We are using Kubernetes on-premises, although we're trying to get more engagement from that team on the product. Importantly, the right-sizing on-premises is setting up our next steps in moving toward the public cloud, and toward that consumption model to the best that we can.

We may utilize Turbonomic in the cloud. The licensing switch that we went through really opened up not only the ability for us to easily scale to other private cloud environments that we have outside of our main one but much more easily scale to the cloud when we're there. I definitely would consider this tool to be a requirement as we start deploying infrastructure out in the cloud, just to help us understand that we're sizing to the best that we can.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to utilize it to its fullest potential. This will include aligning your company's culture. The foundation of the product is putting resources where they're needed, and this is done based on actual data. The politics have to be thrown out the window. As long as that can work in your organization, then this is a great tool that can configure your environment to run optimally.

For someone that is interested in Turbonomic, but already has a process in place for monitoring and optimizing their environment, then this is something that should be evaluated. I can't say that it will replace the existing product but there is more at stake. For us, it's the support and the team that come with the product. This is what surprised me the most and something to look out for.

Overall, Turbonomic has had a positive effect on our application performance. It's helped on many different levels, including toward the resolution of problems. It's even helped flat out prevent problems from happening in the first place.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.