My primary use case for Pandora is monitoring.
The easiest route - we'll conduct a 15 minute phone interview and write up the review for you.
Use our online form to submit your review. It's quick and you can post anonymously.
My primary use case for Pandora is monitoring.
This solution has helped us improve our organization by allowing us to create a lot of metrics on several platforms, including Windows, Linux, and Unix. We then use these Pandora metrics to create an interface. We then pass the interface off to the central console.
Features I have found most valuable with Pandora are the personalized metrics and the simplicity of data.
I would like for the solution to be faster and have a better tolerance between parallel servers for Pandora and Pest Control.
In the next release, I'd like to see, when it comes to monitoring, the facilitation of default monitor creation.
I have been using this solution for about 10 years.
I would rate the stability of this solution a 10, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
I would rate the scalability of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
My impression is that Pandora's technical support is quite good.
My opinion is that the initial setup process was quite easy.
I think that we have seen ROI when it comes to this solution.
Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
I use Pandora FMS to monitor IT infrastructure, applications, and some business processes. Our clients range in size. For example, one of the bigger environments I'm supporting has about 3,000 devices, including router servers, applications, etc. The smaller client has roughly a hundred.
Pandora's architecture is interesting. It's open so you can easily extend and enhance it. It's simpler to customize Pandora compared to other solutions. It's also scalable enough to support large environments.
Pandora could deliver better analytics out of the box. You can work around these limitations with the help of other tools like Grafana. The shortcomings are mostly on the graphical side. The built-in report generators are a bit limited in some areas.
They could improve their management console's ability to monitor large environments could be improved. For example, SNMP management is only partially integrated into the management console.
I have been using Pandora FMS for the last three years.
Pandora is stable.
Pandora is scalable.
Pandora FMS support is good. They're capable and address things quickly.
I did some stuff with Tivoli from IBM. Pandora has advantages in terms of price and extendability. Tivoli is a bit better at correlation handling. The correlation engine was stronger in the IBM product.
The difficulty of the setup depends on the environment, but it's pretty straightforward in a small environment. The time required for deployment also depends on the environment. It takes about half a day for a smaller environment with a hundred similar servers. If you are talking about 1,000-plus servers distributed over various zones, the setup time increases. We have three or four admins to deploy and maintain the solution plus our 24/7 operations.
Pandora is reasonably priced, and the cost depends on the environment.
I rate Pandora FMS nine out of 10. My advice to future Pandora users is to understand what you want to monitor and know your technologies.
