ITRS Geneos Previous Solutions

Senior Enterprise Management Administrator at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
When I started, they had one of the original versions of ITRS Gateway. Now, everything is Gateway 2, but this was the original Gateway. As time went on, we were bought out and another company came in and they were using Nagios. I converted all of their monitoring from Nagios to ITRS. Our current company was using Check_MK, and I took all the servers that they had in Check_MK and brought them into ITRS as well. We wanted our NOC to have a single pane of glass to look at the entire environment. Having them look at an ITRS console, a Nagios console, and a Check_MK console was just too much. So I consolidated everything into one. Through the migrations, I've learned how to use those other solutions. I even did a proof of concept with Nagios, because when one of the companies saw how expensive ITRS was, they asked me if we could do everything in Nagios that we're doing in ITRS. I attempted to do it, but one of the big problems was our extensive log file monitoring. Right now we have six ITRS Gateway servers, although it's really only three because the other three are just the backups. To create that same solution with Nagios, I would have needed over 20 servers. It wasn't feasible. I also eventually looked at Check_MK, but the problem was that it's really just for system-level monitoring. It doesn't really get too extensive with application monitoring, and with the amount of application monitoring that we have deployed, I don't think it would have been possible to do with Check_MK. ITRS is expensive but their service is second to none. And if you have any problems, they usually resolve them within a day or two. There is no comparison when it comes to the visual presentation, between ITRS and Nagios. The Nagios front-end is horrible. It's very difficult to figure out what's alerting and what's broken. With the ITRS console, it's immediate. If you have your filters set correctly you can see exactly which servers and which managed entities are having an issue. The time it takes to get an alert is about the same in ITRS and Nagios. It really depends on how things are configured. We have checks in ITRS that are configured for every 20 seconds. Some of them are every five seconds. You can do the same in Nagios. But the actual viewing of the events is much easier in the ITRS console than it is in the Nagios console. The ITRS gateway is also easier to deploy than Nagios. Nagios and Check_MK are both cheaper solutions but you get what you pay for. The amount of money that you can save with those solutions would be needed for someone in the background, doing a lot of development work to replicate what we're doing in ITRS. You could get cost savings upfront, but you're going to pay for it in the end with the development work. View full review »
Sanket Wartikar
Senior Manager - Trading Systems Support
Previously we had an HPE service for monitoring and before that we had Nagios. The flaw in them was that we only received emails. One dedicated person had to continuously monitor the mail to get action taken when there were alerts. What helped us with ITRS was the real-time monitoring, where the alerts are coming in on the GUI itself. This has resulted in faster action when there are alerts. Events are immediately captured in the ITRS dashboard. We checked various other tools and the monitoring techniques on the market, as well as the techniques used by ITRS. We found that the ITRS monitoring techniques, whether by polling or reading the files, was capturing the data more effectively and showing it on a dashboard which is more intuitive. Here, everything is done based on the trading system that is on the one gateway server. The monitoring techniques that the internal ITRS dashboard is using are more effective than the other monitoring techniques. That's why we opted for ITRS. View full review »
Caleb Bond
E Business Systems Consultant at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
I've used AppDynamics, Dynatrace, and many others before that, but those are the two most recent. In terms of the time taken to get an alert, it's somewhat configurable, but the data lag in AppDynamics has always been about two to three minutes, and that's after fine-tuning. That's as good as we could get. With Dynatrace, it was more like four to five minutes. The pros of Dynatrace and AppDynamics are that they get deeper into the code, and deeper into the transactions automatically, out-of-the-box. Those are very good features. That's not something Geneos does; it doesn't try to do that and that's fine. But the other two are both very good at that. The cons are that they are difficult to customize — maybe impossible to customize. The idea of being able to write a script and execute an action on a monitored server is not a realistic proposition in either of AppDynamics or Dynatrace. And that's huge for us. We use that all the time. That's one of the very best features of Geneos that the competition does not have. Geneos was ordered by our manager because he had experience with it and found our monitoring portfolio to be inadequate, which we agreed with. We have other monitoring tools, but they replaced Dynatrace with AppDynamics and AppDynamics, frankly, just doesn't do everything that we needed to do. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about ITRS Geneos. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: May 2020.
420,062 professionals have used our research since 2012.
User at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
In those days we only used home-baked solutions, but nothing commercial. Someone else made the choice to go with Geneos. It was prior to my involvement. We thought, "That looks okay." View full review »
Learn what your peers think about ITRS Geneos. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: May 2020.
420,062 professionals have used our research since 2012.