OpenText SiteScope Reviews

Our company manages four different city hospital environments and all of them have SiteScope but each uses a different version depending on how long ago the product was implemented. We're a government organization. 

We use and manage SiteScope monitoring tools in our different projects. Each project has different kinds and numbers of users. For example, one has 2,300 users, but normally we use SiteScope for the servers. Physical and virtual. SiteScope monitors 200 virtual servers in one of our projects. I'm a managed services manager and we're a customer of SiteScope.

I can say for the system environment, SiteScope can be useful.It is easy to monitor using WMI protocol to get CPU,Ram and disk status. Also, you can monitor URL. Managing site scope is not as difficult as its reveal. 

The tool dashboards are not good and don't meet our customers' needs. Because of this we generally use open source tools like Grafana and we also use Nagios for monitoring as a free tool. We're able to gather gather information from SiteScope or the other network tools like NMI to create a dashboard in Grafana.

When we use the OMI tool as an umbrella, and SiteScope attempts to allow that, the problem is that a technician can only do one alert from OMI. The integration doesn't work properly. We need to see it in both tools and we're unable to do that. Finally, SiteScope isn't productive if you want to monitor RAM or if you want to monitor some URL.

For additional features, I return to the dashboards. Normally Micro Focus has an integration tool, OPR, for the dashboards. It's not useful and it also needs a high source, at least 24 CPU, and at least 96 gigabyte of RAM. I doubt Micro Focus will develop SiteScope dashboards and other tool dashboards because they'll say they have another tool for it, but it's not a useful tool.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

We've just had one serious integration problem between two tools, OMI and SiteScope. Other than that, it's been a very stable solution. 

We've only carried out minimal scaling over the last two years. We started with 180 servers and are now up to 200. It's not much so it's difficult to judge scalability.

Maybe we were unlucky, but I don't like Micro Focus support very much. Sometimes they are good, sometimes they are bad. It depends on the products and depends on the problem. 

Initial setup is reasonably simple. We've installed four times for the four different projects. It takes a short time to install one tool without any configuration. The configuration takes about a day. 

We do the implementaton ourselves and then our customers deal with maintenance which is done on site. 

People should know that if they only use SiteScope, it won't be enough. They will need to get support from other tools. For example, without HM tools, without network manager tools, it will not work. They won't get the old alerts from their environment and they will be unhappy. SiteScope alone is not enough.

I would rate this product a seven out of 10. 

On-premises

Simplest tool for monitoring servers, web content, databases and other hardware. Its dashboard is really good.

• Complexity in template editing 
• They should provide more templates for new vendor devices.

Very stable.

No issues with the tools.

It fully depends on the costs, customer, and architect.

It was straightforward.

It depends on what the customer wants.

Before choosing a product, I want to evaluate to check all the requirements. Then, before implementation, check all the customer requirements accordingly. 

It's a monitoring tool that's deeply integrated with Performance Center. We can put a load on it and see all the information we need. Plus, it's an inexpensive solution.

It's integrated with different monitoring tools, such as AppDynamics. When we perform testing, it gives us a single client for selecting which monitoring data we want for later analysis of the performance of our systems.

We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope. I think this would make it a true monitoring tool for the environment.

It just works.

We're able to scale when necessary.

We have not used tech support.

We'll probably remove SiteScope shortly because we've been using another monitoring tool in production. SiteScope is just not something we use very much of any more.

• Proactive monitoring based on real experience
• Configuring thresholds for warning events for proactive monitoring and actioning

Simple deployment: The deployment uses protocols such as NetBios, SSH, WMI, SNMP, which means that any device with any of these protocols will be monitored.

Great monitoring capabilities:  The monitoring capabilities have no limit; whatever you can imagine, you can monitor, even using URL monitors, database query monitors, and formula composite monitors, which are not common in other tools.

Reporting:  You have a lot of reports using different criteria - for example, dates, filters, events, and status - which let you analyze the monitored data, convert it into information and take actions.

Event-based actions: You can simply send an e-mail or take actions like restart the server, restart the service, etc.

Agentless Monitoring

Dynamic Monitoring

Dockers Monitoring

Dependency Configuration

Even though the log system is reliable, the tool must have a database. It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository. It could even improve performance and the ability for generating cross-domain reporting for better governance.

It has a wide variety of preconfigured monitors, and great capability for monitoring whatever you wish, including configuring formulas for monitoring.

It is an agentless tool, and very easy to implement. For better performance, try to use another disk different than the OS.

Configure HP SiteScope Restart option for releasing HW resources.

Use of Regular Expressions (regex) is a valuable feature

We use SiteScope for monitoring of our production systems, system resources, and also some application monitoring.  

I think that the product's ability to monitor the systems and applications are the most valuable features. We get alerts over email if there is an issue. We can also use it for our customer support incident and problem management. SiteScope can be integrated to have tickets created automatically when the alert thresholds are breached.  

We are evaluating AppDynamics as a potential solution. We want to understand how that compares to and may be better than SiteScope. So I don't know exactly at this time what can be improved, but that is why we are evaluating AppDynamics. We are taking the opportunity to compare the features in both of these products to see if SiteScope measures up to other products in the category.  

At this point in the comparison, I think what I would say AppDynamics does provide one capability that I think SiteScope does not. This is the ability to track a business transaction from the client through all the layers spanning the architecture. So there is more continuity in tracking from the user to the webserver to the database. This might be something that they could consider adding to SiteScope.  

So what I would like to see included most in the next release of SiteScope is the ability to do better transaction tracking. The other thing I would like to see is SiteScope should provide capabilities to display some graphs of information summaries. For example, say if I want to look at the resource utilization of a system or part of a system over a period of time, it would be nice to be able to get a quick preview of that provided in a graph to get a quick idea without a lot of other evaluation.  

We have been using it for five years at least, probably more.  

SiteScope is stable. We have absolutely no issues with that.  

It is easy to scale. We have about one hundred users in our company who are using SiteScope. Most of them are support engineers. I have no idea about the resources needed for maintenance because that is a separate team. The demand and usage are pretty high on a daily basis, but this does not seem to adversely affect performance.  

So far our experience with the product has been good enough that we have not had to contact technical support.  

We did not have a different solution previously, and at the time we adopted the product we thought that SiteScope was a complete solution. It is not bad, but in the last five years, we learned more about what we might want to see in the product and what is possible with this type of product. As this is the case we are evaluating AppDynamics currently.  

The main reason we are evaluating AppDynamics is because of the capabilities of business transaction tracking through the system. We think that AppDynamics will do this in a more satisfactory way for us and we do not have this feature with SiteScope.  

My advice to other people considering SiteScope as a solution in this category of tools is that I think SiteScope is a good product. It is definitely useful and provides a lot of value. I do not have any other advice in terms of being an end-user because all those things are not a perspective I have on the product.  

In general, I would recommend SiteScope. On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate SiteScope as an eight-out-of-ten.  

Private Cloud

It has been used in a wide area of monitoring systems and network devices in my company.

It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc. It does not use an agent, which might tax system resources.

Licensing is a little steep. 

SiS, the abbreviated acronym for the tool, used to be owned by another company. You could purchase the product with unlimited monitors for $2500. Since HP's acquisition of the product, licensing is done on a points-per-monitor basis. Each individual monitor costs x number of points, an HP sales rep has those exact numbers, which change, seemingly., at whim! :-) You just get an error that you cannot add more monitors without additional licensing! With OOTB you get a few, not enough though to monitor any numbers in a enterprise. And, with literally hundreds of nodes and application monitors, database, web, etc. available, costs can get steep!

We haven't had any issues with stability.

We haven't had any issues with scalability.

• Agentless monitoring
• Different types of health checks
• Web-based UI for easy interaction
• End-to-end monitoring
• E-mail alert messages along with SMS features

System health check monitoring and email alerts after reaching threshold limits.

Monitor mobile health status too.

6 years

No

No

No

Customer Service:

7/10

Technical Support:

8/10

No

HP vendor

100%

Little expensive

Splunk and Gomez

No

Agentless data collection Supporting a big number of monitor metrics

May require a dashboard for the data collected

Easy to deploy

Initial setup was straightforward but when it comes to monitors that look deep inside details like an agent data collection solution, too many customizations and scripting is needed.

HP OM

This solution is a data collection solution. Its added value can't be shown unless you have a clean and clear dashboard to review data collected and correlated