The initial setup is easy because technical documents explain every single step very clearly and precisely. A technical guy can easily implement the solution in any environment. 

I was not a part of the initial setup.

Installation is not too complicated. That said, you won't always get it right the first time, especially in an environment with a lot of security restrictions.

I recommend that you carefully read the documentation, prepare a detailed installation plan and prepare the environment as required, including exceptions to security restrictions for the duration of the installation.

The initial setup is usually straightforward, but we may encounter problems when installing a new environment or upgrading. Sometimes, the solution is incompatible with our machines due to a lack of information about the implementation, which can be problematic.

We require four people for the implementation and it takes one business day to complete.

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.

I would say the initial setup is complex. CA does make it easy, but you need to have the right architecture for it to be successful. You have to design it correctly from the start.

I think what surprised me the most was how easy it was to implement. This was my third migration for manager's console over the last 20 years in IT, and the previous two iterations made me fearful for this new migration. Just because of the amount of work that goes into tuning the alerts and insuring that the data is visualized in a way that operators and consumers of it are expecting. Quite honestly, within two weeks we had live data, we had actionable information, and our operations were so much easier. 

That was the most surprising thing to me, was how easy it was, with initial implementation, to get data out of the tool. Now there's optimization, and additional tuning that we're going to do, and continue to do. But, just getting it up and running was very straightforward.

The complexity was the back office systems, and the compliance, and security points that we have to live under, and finding a way to connect those in a secure way. That was the hardest part. Once we had the back office installed, the discovery and utilization went off very straightforward.

The setup was complex. There are a lot of components that had to be installed. The biggest issue that I had with the installation is that it's very much geared to a root installation.

In other words, if you use the root ID to install the product, you're most likely not going to have issues. We just ran into numerous issues because we did not have root access.

While they made some effort in the documentation to describe how to go about doing that, internally it was less than complete. We kept on getting issues that we could not complete because we didn't have root access.

It was a collaborative effort. Through support's help, a lot of time spent on this side, and with support personnel over here and on the server side, we were able to figure out what the issue was.

However, it wasn't a matter of, "Run this script and you're done installing." In no cases were we that fortunate, because we were not doing a root installation.

Actually, I was not involved in the initial setup. I inherited an old mature system. It seems to be straightforward. I worked with a guy who did set the product up initially, and he had no issues with it. But again, I'm now working on a mature system, so I haven't done that yet.

The setup of DX Performance Management is not difficult but when we did the first installation, we had some support from Broadcom.

It is difficult to say how much time it took to do the implementation because we did it in multiple steps and multiple phases. Phase one was more than five years ago, the installation was done in one to two days. We did the integration with multiple servers it the whole process took approximately two to three months.

Our first step in our implementation strategy was revised because we are an MSP and we need to involve the security and the data center teams to revise where we need to put the servers from the customers who can connect the networks. It took us three months for the first phase of the project and the full completion of the project took approximately one year. There were a lot of servers and customization involved.

I rate the initial setup of DX Performance Management a three out of five.

The initial setup, I wouldn't say was totally complex. I would give it on a scale of one to 10, it is about a six for the initial setup. Once you have the information, I did not think it was that difficult. The challenge was to find out what platform they were running on.

I come from a company that does both Windows and Linux. Of course when we asked them, which environment the tool should run on, they said they support both. They still support both. What I would like to know is, what is the most stable environment for the tool? 

That is where I am looking for them to say. I know no one wants to choose one environment over the other. I do not care what you say. I just need to know your recommended way from experience, which environment has less issues on it. That makes a difference.

We are using Linux, and I am glad we did. I think it would have been a disaster the other way.

It was quite easy. The setup was done in a couple of hours.

Not in the first version, but since, the integration with Spectrum has been quite good. It's more or less fully automated, which means that we get new devices into the network monitoring. It's also synched into the Performance Center. Similarly, if there are new routers sending natural data, it's automatically be coming in, which means that it reduces our administration costs.

With the capabilities of the open API and the web service interface, we're able to automate some other things. For example, we have one customer, with more than 1,000 devices, and there are a lot of changes in infrastructure every day. We automate the menus and the groupings of the devices. We can automate that via RESTful web services. That capability is quite good so in this case, it's all more or less automated.

The deployment, for new customers, takes less than a day. Typically, the products are not the problem. Usually the problems exist in the network by itself: They don't have access to the devices or the like. In the case that the infrastructure is ready, so that you can run your setup, it's quite easy. After a couple of hours, you see the first data.

My colleague does the deployment. Just one person does it.

For us, I would say it was complex. But I think a lot of customers that use the tool rely heavily on the out-of-the-box reporting that CA produces with the tool naturally. For those types of deployments, it might go easier. For our needs, we highly instrumented reports. We have built literally hundreds and hundreds of individual reports ourselves, for our own needs and, I would say that that comes with a level of complexity to accomplish.

Complex. CA PM can be complex to build and configure. Creating the folders / groups / sites required establishing many rule sets.

The initial setup was mostly straightforward, with assistance from onsite technical resources from CA. The majority of issues we encountered were with our corporate requirements on server configurations and not the tools themselves.

The product's deployment is easy for Linux admins. 

It took some time because we could not just upgrade production. We have CA PM on two environments, one is Development, and then we are running on Production. Whatever changes or upgrades need to be made, first we'll perform then on Development. Based on the results, if anything is found, or if the activity goes well, then we'll proceed with the Production system update.

There is a really good amount of documentation, and whenever we need help, they will set up a WebEx session directly, and they'll help us during the implementation, installation, or upgrade activity. 

As we started from the beginning, it has improved a lot since; once again, our solution remains complex due to our usage.

Initial setup was pretty complex, but we were familiar with it and got help from CA.

It was a bit complex to set up. I don't know how much that has changed. But it was fairly complex to set up.

I didn't get any training or have assistance setting up and it did take a while to do. I followed the directions. It was straightforward but there were a lot of steps to set things up at the time. Keep in mind, again, it was quite a long time ago that we set the system up.

The initial setup was really complex. You can probably set it up online in one week and it will start working and collect data right away. So that is one good thing I can say about the performance. Most of the devices that you find in companies and enterprises can be incorporated in the database of the product so that can be monitored correctly. 

The implementation process could be quicker. For deployment, you need a team of one to three people. 

Initial setup was straightforward and pretty easy.

Complex. Install is done as root, which is a security no-no, and the database IO requirements were not stated correctly, which lead to a year of instability.

We would welcome some online demos to be available, or something similar to CA UIM Snap.

The setup was straightforward.

Initial setup is complex.