We experience disconnections between the solutions own components. In the last five years, there have been many intermittent connection issues with the four components and we still don't know the reasons. 

The solution has issues when loading groups that have been created in the application interfaces. 

It would be nice to have a mobile application. In the current industry and technical word, the mobile phone is the only thing that is always in your hands. Other Broadcom products have mobile applications but the solution doesn't offer one. It would be great to view device parameters and view or download graphs from a mobile device. 

It would be great if they had some sort of alert feature. Even though we can see when something is not available, it would also be it would be nice if some sort of alerting took place to that you could know immediately if something went down.

We'd like more granularity on the "top takers".

Most of the functions included in DX Performance Management are sufficient for our monitoring. If we need something extra, we use the DX Performance API and other functions, such as the ability to integrate interface details (graphs, dashboards) into our own applications.

I'm not a fan of many extra features since they usually burden the software and reduce its reliability. In addition, the requirements of each environment are very different, and it will never be possible to develop software that will meet all the requirements of all companies.

However, I would like Broadcom to expand the ability to edit device types by the user in DX Performance Management. Currently, we only have a limited list of standard types, such as switches, routers, and the like. I need to specify custom types so I can customize dashboards for them.

I would like to have more tasks, graphs, and possibilities for linking to the graphs and reports added to the solution.

• 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.

I would like to see it integrated with UIM. That is the one tool that is not in there. Then I would like to see log analytics, which I know are coming; but are still not included.

I'm still working on consuming all the features that I have today, so ask me this again in a year. I would say right now, we're in the midst of adaptation and adoption with this tool, so everyday it seems like there's something new I'm discovering that helps us in our business.

I think it would be helpful having a more comprehensive set of certifications, if you will, so that I could natively deploy devices to my environment and the tool would immediately recognize and immediately be able to provide relevant performance information without a lot of tuning on my part. 

The one area where I think it could be improved is the reporting capability. The dashboard features are very function rich, but the reporting feature is probably not as rich as we'd like it to be. There are some limitations in using it.

For example, the number of objects that you can simultaneously show or display in a report is limited. The reporting capability needs to scale up a little bit higher.

Compared to eHealth the reporting is limited. For example the number of graphs in a report is limited to 15. Another limitation is that you cannot copy or duplicate reports.

The whole non-root installation really needs to be clarified a lot more than they did.

The strategy and the policies could be improved and I think monitoring could also be improved.

What's missing is stuff that they're already putting on the roadmap: the quick dashboards that they're building; the ability to create dashboard quickly; for example, with ADA and NFA, has been pretty amazing.

They are starting to support additional products and every time we come out here, and every time there is a product release, something new is added to it. Honestly, CA should just keep doing what they're doing. I'm sure there's going to be stuff out there we haven't thought of; and I hope they figure it out first.

The solution could improve the database model. It is also not very good because they have a lot of interconnections with other data sources, such as NFA and VNA.

The synchronization when we have tenants could improve. For example, the multi-tenancy synchronization process with the other data sources could improve.

In a feature release, the solution should have templates. It does not have tenant templates that we need, and there are a lot of features that we would like to have but do not. We are in touch with Broadcom and are asking them to implement these features in a future version.

Since the direction is more cloud-oriented, I would like to see what modules or functions they are putting out there to say, "Hey, this is what we are doing to monitor your cloud or help monitor that issue." As we move more towards the cloud, we have to monitor what in that space can I do with the CA PC tool in that environment.

Every product has room for improvement. It could be a little easier to integrate new metrics.

I would like to see open integration with tools like Splunk, ExtraHop, and NetMRI.

There are some areas in the technology right now, like with VMs, where we are lacking with our abilities to get inside the VM to monitor traffic within the machine.

Some of the individual report views, the way some of the columns sort, there's room for improvement in giving us more flexibility in being able to sort reports based, for example, on what columns the metrics fall under.

I would say for the most part, most of the improvements I would identify would be on individual reports that are produced by PM, that we instrument to be produced by PM. They may not necessarily do everything we want them to do.

CA PM Business Hours Filtering: I understand that all monitoring systems have defects. The Business Hours Filtering does not always function properly. Sometimes, when applying business hours to CA PM reports that are 30 or more days in duration, the report generation times out and does not display results. 

We have other CA PM reports that, when we apply Business Hours Filtering, the report results displayed are the same as without the filter. We are not sure if this is a defect in CA PM or if it is a result of our complex configuration (folder structure) and application of business hours.

We would also like to be capable of reporting network performance with a report strictly focused on the times outside business hours, which CA PM does not currently support. We have discontinued the use of the Business Hours Filtering until CA engineers are able to resolve or offer guidance.

There is always room for improvement, which CA continues to do based upon community feedback.

One of the greatest challenges we have encountered are the polling cycles. We currently poll at 5-minute intervals, but at times need to have up-to-the-minute data. Products we have leveraged from other vendors allow us at the click of a button to turn on up-to-the-minute polling for up to an hour. CA Performance Management does not have a similar feature. It may be emulated, however, by setting up a new group for one-minute polling cycles; however, leaving this rate on will impact data storage, so only administrators are provided this feature in our organization.

DX Performance Management should increase high availability. If one of my two data centers goes offline and the other is operational, I need a seamless transition from the primary to the secondary data center. It's crucial to maintain consistent monitoring of the devices during this transition. Therefore, I require continuous, 24/7 monitoring of my system using this tool.

It would be helpful if CA provided online training for its customers. Whenever a release happens, the latest version, we have meetings with CA meeting and they explain the latest features and enhancements, which is really helpful. But then I'm training my internal support on our tool, if there were any training that CA provided directly, online, that would be good.

Today, tenants are bound to a data collector which requires a lot of networking and resources to configure.

In the context of the multi-service provider and the need to have customer segmentation either for IP overlapping or Security (data protection), multi-tenancy is required. However, in order to do this, the tenant (IP Domain) need to be attach to one Data Collector by Tenant. In the MSP context, it is equal to 1 DC per customer and even for small customer (couple device) this is not too scalable or rather expensive.

There are some issues. We started supporting UTA and began to see both major and minor problems. We're able to get support for these problems, though.

This may be available by now but for server space, when it comes to the disk file system, I'd like to see that graphically represented, or the trend, rather than what I'm seeing now. I don't know what the latest version has, all the nice, new features, until I get that project underway.

It is a very good tool but I don't think it is suitable for the European market right now. Huge customers might benefit from using it as most of their customers are directly managed by the vendor and not by partners or freelancers. An improvement would be to reduce the footprint of the installation of the solution. I believe there is room for improvement. 

This solution's implementation process could be quicker. They could also optimize the hardware requirements. 

The quantity of views which are tied to specific metric families is too high. Also, the problem is the view doesn't tell you which metric family it uses, so you don't know why you don't see data.

 What we want to see:

1. More integration inside of Spectrum and integration of role-based access.
2. Our admins must be able, not only, to analyze the data, but combine the data.
3. Admins must be in a role-based administration feature. 
4. That is looking at the site under administration, and saying, "What is the daily job if an alert is coming on?"

Product has issue collecting IP SLA data.

The database should have higher availability in case of an incident.

The certificates are not complete. CA needs to provide more support for the product through certificates. They need to discuss this with their product team.

Certs are the drivers to support the devices. Some of the vendors are not fully covered. An example of this is Brocade. Certain types of Brocade used in our company is not in certs published. There are others as well.

For CA PM, there should be a way of easily migrating the reports coming from eHealth going to CA Performance Center, since CA PC is replacing eHealth.