The solution has been stable and reliable. There are no bugs. However, sometimes, if we have to open the probing, the operation fails. There's some error. That said, in the next release, they will fix the bugs.

DX Unified Infrastructure Management is a very stable tool.

The stability is generally pretty good. There is the occasional Q backups just because of how the hubs communicate. Like different hub versions tend to break that and some are better with it. It is hit or miss. For the most part, it is usually pretty good. 

Stability is fairly good. It's getting better every day.

There are some challenges with it as far as having a lot of users logging in at the same time. What they do is they log in to see what's happening in the environment, respond, and contact whoever they need to, to attack whatever issue came up. Sometimes the stability is not what we expected, but it's really good still.

There is a bit of lag that we're seeing. We just completed a migration to a higher version. It is better, but we are still seeing some unexpected downtime in the course of the day. The frequency of those incidents is going down every day. So, we expect that the stability will pretty much go up.

Stability has been spot on. We haven't had any problems. We actually performed an upgrade mid-cycle, and the upgrade went flawlessly with literally no issues. Correlation has been fantastic. We've integrated with several different applications, as well, for monitoring, alerting, things of that nature. No problems at all.

Stability is exceptional. However, if you have unusual server configurations, Nimsoft may not behave so well – MS clustering. There also seems to be a bug where the entire Nimsoft Server config gets corrupted during a reboot. Support has yet to be able to track down the root cause of this issue. Recovery is annoying but simple is you’ve made a backup copy of your NMS config files.

CA UIM is very stable. We don't have a lot of problems with it.

Stability goes along with the easy management, just so long as you have a distributed system set up. I've had no problems with maintaining availability.

Stability? Works great.

I think it needs a little work in terms of stability. We've had issues with some probes crashing. It seems like there are really more bugs in a release when it comes out than there should be. I would think they should be caught in QA. That's what I've seen so far.

It’s not as stable as I would hope -- we see probes losing contact with the hub, doing a failover. We see failovers and I wouldn’t expect that in this type of product – it just shouldn’t happen.

There are issues with DX UIM's stability.

Stability is very good, we've not really had any major issues at all with it, honestly. In developing a product and moving very quickly with the development, so you're going to have bumps on the road. There are some issues but they're quick to respond to those, they're quick to work through them, so it's okay.

It's a very stable platform. We got it, we installed it, we put it inside of OpenStack, and it should not have been. We can't do systemic monitoring inside the hypervisor piece of it. It's resident on OpenStack. There's no routable way to get to that from a guest VM. It's designed that way for security. From a guest site, you can't go out to the community toolbar system. It's not going to allow you that.

The control hosts are the things around the OpenStack piece. Also the control hosts are like the ESI box. For us to launch that from a guest VM off a hypervisor, to try and do systemic monitoring from a hypervisor to a control hosts out there that's handling all of the hardware, or the secondary pieces of OpenStack, it says, "No, I'm not going to allow you to do that." We had to port out a static IP to go out there and do that, which was really not good. It was bad practice. It wasn't always stable. Once we moved it off the control hosts and we start putting blades within the cloud structure, it was fine.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

We have not had any stability issues.

UIM is pretty stable. Everything has its quirks. As far as the monitoring platform as a whole, I've worked with a lot of different programs and it's pretty stable. It's up there with the top.

No technology is perfect, but CA is doing a really wonderful job of providing products that are reliable, scalable, and dependable to entities all over the world. People have to pay for this as well. If CA was not doing something right, I would not have seen 20,000 users at CA World.

The solution is very, very stable and easily configurable. We don't have too many issues with the UIM. It's a very good tool.

I'd rate the stability five out of five.

One of the things that I've noticed over the years of working with it is that working with the console and working with the different hubs and robots, it seems to me like over the years that if your database was slow or down, the database was primarily used for storing data points, historical data points, and if that was down, you couldn't store those points, but the tool still functioned properly. We're finding more and more that has been moved into the database, meaning that if your database is down or buggy or slow, the tool itself, the IM console is relying more and more on data out of the database. So, if you got a slow connection or if your database is buggy or if your database is down, you basically can't control your environment at all.

That's a negative thing I've seen change in the tool, because it used to be that if the database went down, we could still access all of our hubs, all of our robots through the IM console, control them. Alerts that came in would still create a ticket, because we actually pass it to a ticketing software and all that functioned, but now that's not the case anymore. If the database is down or if there's something going on, the console becomes very buggy and very, very slow, and sometimes impossible to use. That's one thing that I wouldn't mind someone looking into.

Since we have gone live, it has been extremely stable. 

There has been a couple of minor issues that we have had to work through. Quite frankly, it has exceeded my expectations. 

UIM is very stable.

No stability issues encountered.

There has been no issue with the stability.

You end up pairing off a lot of technical debts so most of that 300% improvement, I mean reduction in outages actually didn't come because of our monitoring, it's because we put the monitoring in place. That's the hard work that's done by our infrastructure teams in order to support it. The solution is very stable. When you're in the outage management business, the last thing that you want is your own solution to be going down. It doesn't speak well for the whole solution but we get a tremendous amount of stability from the system. We have redundant nodes and all that stuff all in place. The last thing we usually think about is the system itself going down just because, to be honest, in the five years that we've been running it, we haven't had any issues.

The robots are a bit unstable sometimes, we often encounter robot inactive alerts even though the service is running. We have to restart to fix this issue.

Stability's been good.

The biggest problem is certain what they call "hubs." Different releases of different probes can be problematic, to get the right versions to work together. Or to find out if they scale or if they don't. So you've got to do some testing.

With the new release, the new version, it is more stable. The last releases were less stable than the new one. We think version 8.3 wasn't that stable. But with the 8.5.2, it's alright. It's really stable now.

We make ourselves available on call to our clients and it's now maybe one or two nights per month that there is downtime.

It's been very stable for me as an end-user. We haven't had any problems yet.

I haven’t had issues with stability.

The stability is great, but I just find the ease-of-use to be lacking.

It's pretty stable. Haven't had any problems.

We have found this to be a stable solution.

It's been a great product compared to some previous monitoring tools we had in place. Every time there were software updates for the server for security, from Microsoft or any other vendors, that would require reboots. A lot of the times we would have crashes or we'd have to do some recovery to bring them back up. With UIM, we've been running it for about nine or 10 months now and I think I've had to go and reboot the servers once.

We've had some issues that may to do with versioning, though not completely. In our backend, the database structure and message bus are on the really old version, though the hub is the newest version. There's a point when new features on the hub may no longer be possible. This may be where our version is hurting us.

Sometimes our hubs get choked up and support has never been able to isolate the cause.

We do have times where the hubs get choked up and we've never been able to isolate why with support. Is it something in our environment or is it something they see from other customers? Is it hubs that are too busy? Is it our REX infrastructure? We've never been able to isolate the cause. I've had several support cases over the years about a scenario where the hub gets into a partially functioning state and so all the robots have realized it's not working normally and have moved over to their backup hub. That hub itself still expects to hear from all those robots and so we'll get a flood of hundreds of alarms saying, "Robot inactive. These robots are not checking into me." It's really that they're just checking into the other hub.

That's the issue -- there's no intelligence at that layer. And because of that, one of our most common alarm floods is from the hub itself.

I had an escalation one time to double check that the hub failed-over okay and was back online because they got a hundred tickets opened all at the same time. That's the main point that we've had in terms of instability, is on the hub. We have hubs at other sites that don't have as many robots or aren't doing as many ping checks and they have much fewer issues. It could be that some of these hubs are just too busy and they're more likely to get choked up.

There's also the issue of portal performance. We have UMP released and it's not awful for our customers. If a customer logs in, from a security stand point, they're only seeing their data. If they have 10 servers that we manage for them, the performance isn't awful in that scenario. As an internal employee, when we log in and we have the permission to see all of our data from thousands of devices, the performance is a lot slower and a lot more painful and that's something that we're several versions behind on the portal.

The biggest concern stability wise falls under UMP, the management protocol. We’ve had a hard time bringing it up and keeping it stable. It runs, but it keeps losing components. We opened several tickets, but we’ve not had things refresh (charts don’t update) and have had lost data (such as some reporting that we can’t get to). Unified Reporter went offline altogether on v.8.31. It was OK on 8.2.

Issues seen with stability of the product were wiped out years ago, the product has been rock solid since then.

We have found this to be a fairly stable solution.

It seems pretty stable. I have not had any cyclic concerns. There was an issue when we migrated to the latest version, but we had support that day to get it resolved and it was resolved within 24 hours, so that was a plus. 

When we upgraded to the latest version, the admin lost access to the management console. That was the issue and it got resolved really quickly. 

We have not had stability issues.

The stability for UIM creates that reliant backbone that we need. If there is anything customizable that needs to be done, that is being done by the other suites; but UIM is very good and it helps coordinate everything and provides reliability.

CA UIM is very stable. We're using an older version right now, but as we move forward, the product is getting better every year. It seems to be more stable every year when they come out with a new release.

There have been no issues with the stability.

The stability is pretty good although it still has some quirks. It is a legacy tool and as such, there's been a lot of angst in the development of it. Once you've been through years and years of bug fixes it's quite stable. Some of the newer components are still rough around the edges.

The stability is good. They have an HA feature, high availability. And whe we were setting it up with use of support, we decided not to even set up that functionality because it's very seldom that we have a problem with it going down.

We had no stability issues. The built-in redundancy allows for maintenance windows for patching.

We've had a couple of minor issues but some of it had to do with our own inexperience with it. It's got lots of room to improve in terms of management. Set up our configuration in groups, that's a lot more challenging than it was in the old product, but hopefully the new features that they put in in the next couple releases will make that easier.

For the past year, the tool has been quite stable in our environment, so I enjoy working with it. 

We haven't had any issues with downtime with the solution at all. We do have, at times, the robots which are probes that log onto server. Sometimes they'll hang or fall offline and we generally have an auto-restart if that happens. Most the time we find out we caused it ourselves because somebody was performing maintenance.

In a large environment using tunnels, occasionally there were stability issues. I found most them were self-inflicted though early on due to my inexperience with the product.

Very stable.

Stability is an interesting one. From a design point of view, if you understand the type of demand you're putting on it and you plan forward, which we've worked to learned to do, it becomes more stable. If you don’t know what you're doing and you try to do something with it which it's not really designed for, of course you have performance issues with many products.

So, it's really about knowing what you want to get out of the product and how you want to architect the product to meet your objectives.

Yes, Q issues at very slow dashboards (flash!!!)

It is very stable, I would say. Maybe, we had issues during upgrades, but it's been relatively very stable.

No problems at all so far with stability, if you happen to have a problem, just open a support ticket and C.A will try to help you as fast as they can.

Like with any big product, it's had it's ups and downs. The last few releases have been outstanding. The stability has really come along way in the last few years.

There were a few instances when Nimsoft agents would crash on hosts. However, this was not too serious and it boiled down to some minor external factors that were solved quickly with customer support.

I think it’s a very stable product. The portal and application have been stable, so no issues.

It serves its purpose. We only seem to be able to have one threshold per server at this stage instead of multiple; it’s not clear whether that’s a limitation of the software. They have a whole bunch of different groups – for example one group has a threshold of a certain value, and another group with another threshold. So many groups can quickly get out of hand; managing that many different groups can be difficult.

CA UIM is a mature and stable product.

The environment around UIM is sometimes complex and can cause some instability. We have good support to resolve issues when this happens. 

It has been very stable. I love it so far.

There have been no issues with the stability.

There have been no issues with the stability.

It’s very stable, and more importantly, it supports failover components, which is a great feature.

Every product has issues.`

No issues were encountered.

Some versions of the UIM HUB probe are unstable and causes the HUB tunneling to stop responding.

I’m a CA beta tester and found all issues that need to be solved in this program. I have no stability issues in my production environment.

There's nothing out of the ordinary with deployment because you're going to have some issues with all products depending on how it fits into your environment. Product iterations get better and better over the years. We've worked with UIM for seven years now, and we've seen a lot of different versions, and they get more and more stable.

There were some issues.

Same answer as deployment.

I did not find problems with stability. I think the advice we got at the beginning helped us to get the correct dimensioning of the equipment and the functionalities of the product. Once it came into operation, the product always performed the expected functionality.

We have run into instances where probes are no longer supported and are integral to our monitoring, and there is not a bulk solution for replacing with the new supported probe. If you are using the SSL Tunneling in the Hub Probe, Support has been unable to identify a method to monitor the tunnel status which is built into the Windows Service. Many times, the tunnel will experience communication issues and being queueing thousands of alarms, alerts, qos but we have no way of being notified until we notice we are no longer getting metrics. The Hub probe has not been reliable for us in the past several versions across various sites and we often need to work with their developers to resolve issues. SAN and Networking appliance compatibly is severely lacking (Dell EQL, Nimble, StorSimple, Cisco ASA, and more all have issues or have no support). You can custom create via SNMP MIBs, but this requires manual implementation.

We've had no issues with stability.

The probes (basic components that can, amongst other things, monitor particular systems) can be buggy. More often than not new releases are to fix issues rather than add new functionality. The core components are fairly robust for the environments I have worked on. CA support are quick to act when issues arise however and the community has excellent contributors which can provide key insights into problems as well as identifying them before they arise.

No issues encountered.

It is a stable product.

The application requires a lot of capacity to run and grow, so it’s important that you be aware of the impact of the growth of your IT infrastructure on the monitoring system.

Stability issues I faced were caused by wrong planning and extremely high load on the DB. Once this is sorted out, the core is stable. Web GUI sometimes had stability issues, but 98% of the time it's stable.

Stability is pretty good. As I said, it does have its hiccups at times. We use an on-prem solution, so for the most part it's pretty good. 

There were no stability issues. It is a very stable product with agents not failing that often.

The stability is good. Many releases every year. It's something which is quite stable and pro-rating well.

We've had issues from the get go, but they have gotten better since we upgraded 8.31. Through implementation, we discovered that the company that architected the solution did it incorrectly. So four months in, the install had to be redone and reconfigured to a tiered architecture. We have had a couple issues that support has never seen before, but we were able to work through it. I think we are on a pretty good path now.

We had some issues with stability.

Yes, it was unstable for couple months due to the main component that inserts the QoS data on Nimsoft database.

We have had very few issues even without anyone dedicated to managing it.

It is definitely stable. We worked with CA consultants to make sure of this.

The stability is totally proportional to the defined architecture.

Open source and acquired components are often bolted on and integrated poorly.

It's very stable.

Yes but mostly related to the chosen architecture, rather than the application itself.

The stability is really great, because it works on the big scale. We do not have fails.

It’s stable, but we had issues in the implementation. Otherwise, it stays up, so that’s good.

In terms of stability, there’s a little bit of latency, but CA's looking to change it.

No issues with the recent versions, and v8.2 is very stable.

There were some issues in displaying metrics in a large environment.

Yes, we did encounter on some stability issues earlier.

No.

Yes, prior to version 8.5.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

No.

It's very great, it's always up, it's available; don't have any outages.

It is stable. We have some short downtimes, but CA helped us get back up again.

The NAS probe has a performance issue. When there is huge number of incoming events, NAS fails to process them.

Once in a while it lags, but it hasn’t become a big issue.

Hub tunnels

We have not had stability issues yet.