What is our primary use case?
Performance management for capacity monitoring of the Wells Fargo network.
Performance-wise so far, so good. We have been ramping up close to the limit of the application: four million polled metrics. We are at approximately 3.6 million. So far, it has been doing alright. A couple of hiccups here and there, but overall we are happy with it.
How has it helped my organization?
It saves time having it all on one place, so you do not have to jump around from different tools and try to merge the data. It is already done for you.
It does not really affect how the company functions, but it gives us insight into performance slow downs, and if we need more bandwidth and more larger, heavy-duty equipment.
What is most valuable?
The integration with NetFlow, the NFA solution, so we can have our flow forensics paired with the SNMP polling performance metrics on the same page. Everybody throws around single pane of glass, but this is really the benefit that we see from it. Have it being able to have everything there in one application UI.
What needs improvement?
- Global synchronization errors. Sometimes it just does not finish in time due to the load.
- When it goes through discovery, or whatever it is doing on the back-end that slows it down, sometimes we get some failures with it.
- On the NFA ipv6 support, they still have not fully supported it. It is huge for large enterprises. Since we are out of registered IP space, we are moving to ipv6 and we expect our vendors to move with us, and they have not delivered yet. That is a contention point for us.
- They need to improve on response times for development stuff, bug fixes and enhancement for the turnaround times.
For how long have I used the solution?
Three to five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Stability is good. There are definitely some areas where you have patching or a planned outage. There is no solution right now to avoid data gaps. I know they are planning on it and that it is in the development life cycle for the next year or two that they are going to be releasing a solution for it.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability is great. We would like more because we are almost at the limit or at least the advertised limit for the system. I know they are working to move their four million data pulled metrics up to 10 million. So, that will be a lot better for us, just because we have such a large enterprise.
How is customer service and technical support?
Technical support is good and very responsive. We have weekly calls with our account team and the staff. The development piece providing what we are asking for, maybe an enhancement request and stuff like that, is a little slow. However, we like to think that we are the most important customer for CA, but I know there are other customers out there.
How was the initial setup?
Because of security requirements within our infrastructure, the setup of Vertica was horrendous. It was really a lot of work. Vertica is Micro Focus, but it was really hard.
Upgrades are great. They are very easy.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
We were looking at other vendors in the marketplace for NetFlow, and CA just beat everybody else in price, cost, and the size to implement. The infrastructure investment that you have to put into installing the systems.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We looked at InfoVista. We already have InfoVista at the bank, so we looked at them, but their solution just was not viable for us.
What other advice do I have?
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: For Wells Fargo, it is being able to handle the size and scalability. Most vendors out there cannot for large enterprises, because we are pretty much a small Telco in our size. Therefore, being able to scale up to 40,000 to 50,000 network devices is extremely important for horizontal scalability and the layout.
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Dec 27 2017