OpenText Operations Bridge Reviews

The solution is mainly used for server monitoring as well as consolidation integration with the various data sources. We use this for where we want to consolidate event performance rates and capture all those tools that were a single unit.

The even consolidation is great and the extract mechanisms give you very good correlation features.

The stability is good.

I've found the solution to be very scalable. 

The setup process can get a little bit complex. 

There is new development happening, however, it's important that certain legacy applications should be supported in the future.

I've used the solution for eight to ten years at this point. 

It's highly stable. It's worked well for me for eight to ten years and I haven't had any issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable and the performance is good. 

The solution scales quite well. It's not a problem at all. If a company needs to expand it out, it can do so.

The initial setup is not exactly straightforward. It's complex as it's not just one product. It has to integrate with many other products. A standalone product can be simple, however, when you have an integrated environment, definitely the complexity is increased. How you design it and whether it is standalone dictates the process. Every setup is unique and different according to each individual company.

The cloud version does have a subscription cost.

While the solution is on-premises, we also have a cloud deployment that has just started. It's available via subscription and companies can use both models. 

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite happy with its capabilities and have been quite pleased with that solution overall.

It is mostly used for event management. We use it to consolidate events from different data collectors.

The correlation feature is the most used feature. It allows you to correlate events from different sources and have more meaningful events.

The deployment of agents on new CI should be improved. There should be some kind of automation to directly deploy them from the console.

It can maybe have some more AI functions because most of the other tools are going in that direction.

I have been using this solution for around two years.

It is stable. It has got high availability.

I haven't done that yet, but its scalability must be good. It must be easy to add new servers.

In terms of usage, mostly the operations teams work on these events. We have a team of around ten members.

Their support is good. The community is also helpful.

It was pretty straightforward.

It was actually management's call, so I didn't get a chance to look at other tools.

I would rate Operations Bridge an eight out of ten. It is a very good solution for event management and agent-based monitoring.

We primarily used it for monitoring. We used the desk portal that you have for IT support. We also installed the OBi and the BBD to do a lot of the analytics and to prevent difficulties within the BBD dashboard.

The most valuable feature of the solution depends on a few factors. Sometimes if a user is working with, for example, Norton systems, and uses the consoles or monitoring desk ports, if they work with the system feed, they can present a performance report. It's very useful because users can do quite a bit of analytics just from that.

The core manager also allows for the creation of a custom dashboard, and users can use the cache from the dashboard which can include images. You can import the images to the custom dashboard and create basically whatever you want or need.

It depends on the contract a user holds with the company, but technical support could be improved. We work with a vendor of Micro Focus. If you need support for the OBi or BBD, you might be able to use R&D. If we need something we call R&D and get level one support.

The stability of the solution has become problematic and should be improved.

The pricing is a bit expensive for smaller companies. 

If I recall we used the solution for an agency installation, or we used the site for monitoring agencies. For operations, if you have Micro Focus 2003 to 2008 you can do this. 

The stability isn't so great. Stability was really good in the past, but now, even if you have software on the network the operating system is very problematic.

The solution is quite scalable. Even now, with the new system that they have. Recently, they changed the platform out to a licensed model and it's very easy to change the license if you need to grow. If you have an agent license you can apply it with the agent side license or with an APM induction license and scale up quite well.

On our client-side, we have a lot of users. We work with enterprise-level clients as well as smaller companies and have a lot of users on the system. This includes IT managers and operations center managers among others.

We've previously used a variety of other solutions. 

We've worked with CA, Nagios Spectrum, Unicenter (which is the older version of Nagios), and Tivoli. Most customers have been on or are on Tivoli as well.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not complex at all.

The solution is easy to install, which is wonderful.

The pricing may be a bit high for smaller customers. If a customer doesn't have more than 2,000 users, they might prefer to go with an open-source option, which won't cost much, if anything. Smaller companies can find a lot of other solutions besides Micro Focus, which is more suited for larger companies.

We're partners with Micro Focus as well as Microsoft and BMC and we're based in Isreal.

We use the on-premises deployment model. We don't use the cloud deployment model. A lot of the systems are not on the cloud yet. 

We also internally developed a system on the AppSwitch platform to help our clients gain more advantage. We have it monitoring all systems.

If the customer is an enterprise-level customer with more than 1,500 or 2,000 users, Micro Focus can help. Users can do a lot on the IP in terms of the monitoring systems and will find a lot of boot code. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for event monitoring and evaluation.

The most valuable features of the solution are its grouping scripts and event focus.

The solution needs to improve its general performance of the interface. Especially when there are lots of events, it takes forever to load, especially the closed events. 

In a future release, we would like an improved upgrade process. When you upgrade it now, it first uninstalls everything and then reinstalls all the packages, which means any customization that you've done in the directories on the surface disappears.

The solution is reasonably stable. The performance is not always up to scratch, but it seems to be pretty reliable in most cases.

The solution is scalable. The UI seems to be a bit slow sometimes, but otherwise, it's fine. We have between 50-100 users.

The past year has not been very good in terms of technical support. There were long waits before replying. I think up to one year ago it was all right, but now it takes a very long to find solutions to a problem. Very often we find the solution ourselves before the support engineers do.

We previously used Operations Manager. We switched for the added features, better scalability, overall experience, and better resolution to end of life issues. 

The initial setup is simple.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I would advise others to look into the correlation techniques and adaptability through grouping scripts. The out of the box functionality is great, but there's so much more that you can do with it including dashboards, etc.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are using this solution for incident management, and event automation.

In Micro Focus OBM, everything was controlled at the node level and now everything can be controlled at the console level. 

It's a very good product overall.

The pricing could be improved.

I have been using Micro Focus Operations Manager for ten years.

We are using the latest version.

It's very stable.

It's a scalable solution. 

We have approximately 45,000 users in our organization. 

We are only working with two products, one is Micro Focus Operations Manager, and the other is Orchestration, that we are trying.

It's very easy to install.

We have a team of 15 members to deploy, maintain, and support this solution.

The cost is very high.

We plan to continue using this solution. We are already working on a new project using Micro Focus and I recommend it for other users.

I would rate Micro Focus Operations Manager a nine out of ten.

First case of installation of the tool with the business branch of a French telecom provider.
We installed the tool with SiteScope, Network Node Manager and Network automation.
I don't remember the exact environment but we had more than 2000 network nodes and a number of servers.

Installation of a preprod and prod environment. Not much customization. Some rules for enriching and installing the different connectors. Some business view was created too

Great experience but I moved to network automation for a new project.

the implementation of Operation Manager made it possible to centralize the events of several supervision tools such as sitescope, Network node manager or Nagios.

This is one of the big advantages of the product, the connectors developed by microfocus.

All the enrichment part allowed to reduce the processing time of support tickets. All the information was already present in the alarm.

We could have gone further with the connectors to the ticketing tools.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

the most important aspects in Operation Managers are:

* The total environment provided by microfocus. All the tools can be implemented together with a certain ease.

*A lot of documentation provided by Microfocus and a fairly large community. The forum is provided in response from members.

* Enrichment is also a strong point but also found among competitors

level 1 technical support is incompetent. I'm almost afraid to open tickets because I know I'll be asked the same thing 8 times.

The price is very expensive for a tool that doesn't evolve very quickly compared to competitors.

I've been working with the solution for five years.

We haven't faced any stability issues. There hasn't been any crashes or glitches.

We haven't faced any issues with scaling the solution.

lot of bug with queue

We've been in contact with technical support, and we find it to be unreliable. They always ask the same questions and they don't fix the problems. We're very unhappy with the level of support they provide.

We're currently looking at switching to Canopsis, which is an open-source product. It has all the modules we need and it's absolutely free. It's very similar to Operations Bridge, for the most part.

I didn't participate in the original setup, so I'm unsure as to if it was straightforward or not.

The solution itself is quite expensive. We did have to pay extra for technical support when we purchased the solution, however. It was included in the price.

We don't have a relationship with the solution; we're just a customer.

It's a good solution overall. On the market, there aren't many other solutions, other than maybe BMC or a few more. It's expensive, but it's very good.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

This solution is used for centralized infrastructure and application monitoring. It will take monitoring data from other tools and contribute to the central repository. Sometimes it is integrated with the service desk to create incidents when something goes wrong.

I have used versions of this product for Windows and Linux, and they are slightly different.

The most valuable feature is the seamless monitoring of both Windows and Unix servers.

You can create an application topology that shows relationships between different components.

The advancement of this solution seems to have stalled. These types of products have a long history and it may be best to create a brand new application, from scratch. It is difficult to suggest significant improvements.

The initial setup of this tool is complex for people who lack experience with it.

It would be great to improve the automatic discovery of application topology.

I have been using Micro Focus Operations Manager for more than six years.

We have had no issues with respect to stability.

Scalability has been good enough for our needs.

I have been in contact with Micro Focus support a few times and I would rate them a four out of five. Sometimes, they took to long to solve problems. The response time was always good, but it was the time it took to actually resolve the issue that was slow in some cases.

The initial setup is complex. It is not easy to understand how to correctly implement it for the first time. Subsequent implementations were much easier because we had some experience. You have to understand what you want to monitor before you start with the implementation, and a technical person is required.

The deployment takes approximately three to five months for a medium-sized implementation.

This is a product that I would recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My primary use is the consolidation of monitoring tools and dashboards.

The most valuable feature is that everything can be consolidated into one dashboard.

The service takes a very long time to start and it requires a lot of resources. A huge amount of memory is required.

The setup process should be simplified and faster to complete.

I have been using Micro Focus Operations Manager for 15 years.

I have experienced no issues with stability.

I have not needed to scale this solution. We have fewer than 100 users and we do not plan on increasing our usage right now.

I have not needed to contact technical support within the past year.

My team has been in contact with the local Micro Focus partner and my understanding is that the local partner's skills could use some improvement.

We are using another similar tool in the company, but it is not in my department.

It took approximately one week to complete the installation and setup. I would say that the setup process is painful.

I implemented and deployed this solution myself.

I don't remember exactly how much it costs but I know that it's affordable.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.