We use this solution for monitoring the status of all network devices.
We monitor links, bandwidth utilization, and device CPU and memory utilization. We generate reports of the top ten utilization links, which are helpful for acting proactively.
Download the Network Monitoring Software Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: October 2021
We use this solution for monitoring the status of all network devices.
We monitor links, bandwidth utilization, and device CPU and memory utilization. We generate reports of the top ten utilization links, which are helpful for acting proactively.
The Statseeker polling engine is very efficient and it does not miss any outage.
Device grouping is very easy, and you can discover thousands of devices in a few minutes.
Other valuable options are efficiency, availability, and vendor support.
This solution is very user-friendly.
Building a server is very easy and in the case where it crashes, it can be made ready in a couple of minutes. Restoring data is very fast and simple.
I very much like the outages and statistics report, as it is helping to be proactive.
I would like to see the addition of a network configuration management feature. It would take online backup configurations, deploy configurations to active nodes, compare configuration changes, provide detailed hardware reports, and generate the configuration compliance reports.
The inclusion of configuration management features and SIP links would improve this solution.
A single server can handle hundreds of thousands of interfaces.
We did use another solution prior to this one, but we switched because Statseeker is very efficient and very user-friendly.
The cost, pricing, and licensing are better compared to other solutions.
Our primary use case for Statseeker is for network monitoring.
It is quicker and faster responding to troubleshooting.
The solution reduces the complexity of our network monitoring because it can make my engineers do their jobs faster. The solution also reduces troubleshooting time for network administrators to pinpoint issues quicker.
In terms of network availability, we have a faster response to outages and thus, faster remediations in uptime.
It's fast and easy.
The solution's network visibility is very in-depth and granular. I can look at one-minute data points and it does not roll data up over time.
There is a little bit of room to improve in the alerting section to give some more options there. It's all I can think of right now off the top of my head.
The solution also has very good stability.
The solution has very good scalability.
Their technical support is very good. They solved every issue we've had.
We didn't really have a previous solution. It was kind of a home-grown solution, so Statseeker was easy. It was inexpensive. It fit the need and was very fast to get implemented.
The initial setup was straightforward.
We may not have a solidified ROI, but my engineers' time to troubleshoot was reduced so they can focus on other, more important issues.
The licensing cost is yearly and it's $5,000 to $8,000, I think.
We didn't really have a short list. It was just one or two. I think the other company doesn't exist anymore. We chose Statseeker because of the ease use, fast deployments, and simple interface.
It's a great product and if you're looking for network monitoring, I would highly recommend it.
The biggest lesson I learned is that having one-minute granularity that doesn't roll up over time is incredibly important if we want to do any historical troubleshooting.
I would rate Statseeker as nine out of ten, not a ten only because it wasn't free.
Our primary use case is for polling and interface utilization. The solution helped us to monitor our network availability. Now we're more alert to what's going on.
It's used by our network operations center to identity down interfaces.
It also allows us to predict capacity on WAN circuits to plan when we'll need the next upgrade. The solution has made things more visible for the network admin, so this solution has been good for them. It has also helped with monitoring so that we're alert to what's going on.
The most valuable feature is the historical data that it offers. The solution's granularity in terms of network visibility is good.
That user interface for selecting things needs to be a little more intuitive.
The stability of the solution has been great.
The scalability is good.
I haven't had to deal with customer support personally. One of my counterparts has. It sounds like it's been good.
My counterpart was familiar with Statseeker from a former job. He brought it in.
The initial setup is straightforward.
We did the setup ourselves directly.
The next company on our shortlist was SolarWinds.
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution a seven and a half. It's been solid and reliable. I love the historical data and the fact that it doesn't average it when it saves it.
I like the fact that I can aggregate multiple interfaces into a single graph. It allows me to quickly get the summary of traffic for multiple devices which is helpful.
Our primary use for this solution was to monitor devices. I was the Statseeker administrator before we switched to a new solution. I do, however, still go back and use it.
This solution allowed us to monitor bandwidth usage within the data center.
The most valuable feature is alerting.
I like the dashboard because it is simple and fast. The granularity is really good. I’m impressed.
It would be nice if they had twenty-four-hour technical support because we contact Australia and we have to wait for them to open.
Technical support for this solution is pretty good. The group we called was based out of Australia.
The initial setup for this solution was straight forward. They have good technical support and a good website that is clear.
We had some assistance from the National Statseeker team.
We did see ROI while we were using the solution.
Statseeker is pretty cheap.
We evaluated PRTG by Paessler AG before settling on this solution. We have since adopted a new solution, although I do still use Statseeker.
I like this product and would recommend it to a colleague at another company. It is fast, simple to use, pretty cheap, and they give you support.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
We primarily use this solution for educational content.
This solution allows us to have fewer employees.
It reduces the complexity of our network monitoring. We are better able to manage all of our components.
We make use of Cisco ACI support, we do this to make quotas.
It has affected the workload of our network admin team. It is awesome. We have fewer employees.
Our network availability is increasing and it does reduce costs, but I do not know by how much.
The most valuable features are scalability and reliability. Network visibility is good.
Technical support needs improvement.
Stability is excellent.
The scalability of this solution is good.
Technical support for this solution is bad, as is everything with Cisco support.
The initial setup of this solution is complex.
We had assistance in implementing this solution.
We only evaluated Cisco and HP when researching this solution.
This solution is not perfect.
Always try to minimize the effort by the support teams to keep the solution alive.
I would rate it a seven out of ten.
We use this solution to control bandwidth congestion, and also for the recovery of unused data network ports.
It has somewhat helped the workload of our network admin team. The recovery reports have streamlined our process, and diagnosing certain congestions is easier.
This solution provides a deeper investigation into certain circuit congestions. It’s a much quicker way to drive into troubleshooting congestion issues.
The most valuable feature is the recovery of the unused data ports. We're able to recover more expensive ports on our access line devices. For example, we can run a report that dynamically pulls out all of the ports that haven't been used in ninety days. We can then recover those for new and upcoming projects. We don't have to buy additional hardware in order to expand. There are a few other companies that do this, but Statseeker and AKIPS are probably the two that do it the best.
This tool is fairly easy to use.
Network visibility is fantastic. Statseeker has worked out really well for us.
If it had more detailed NetFlow information then it would be far better. This would allow us to find the top talkers and congestion situations. It would be helpful to be able to drill down quickly and identify a top talker to pull them off and streamline a congested circuit.
A lower cost, overall, would be fantastic.
The reporting functionality can be cleaned up a little bit. Some of the reporting operations happen on the right side of the pane, where you move from right to left, which is less intuitive than it should be. A top-down approach would be much more simple. Right to left is less natural because in English we read from top-down, left to right.
This solution is stable.
The scalability is adequate.
Technical support for this solution is adequate.
We have used several different solutions.
The SolarWinds solution is probably the most encompassing and probably the closest thing that we can get to a single pane of glass. However, they do not have unused ninety-day reports or circuit utilization. Also, their NetFlow is a tad bit lacking.
The initial setup is straightforward. It's a fairly intuitive tool to set up, and adding a network device is pretty simple.
We deployed the solution ourselves.
We're able to recover ports from our system and defer costs and new hardware, which has been somewhat beneficial, but how much cost avoidance has actually helped us streamline is not something that we can capture really well.
This tool would probably be priced well if it had deeper NetFlow capabilities, but for our use case, in particular, we're only recovering ports after ninety days and looking at circuit congestion, it's pretty pricey.
AKIPS offers pretty much an exact feature set to Statseeker but is significantly less expensive.
This product provides some good functionality. However, the reporting is right to left, which is less than ideal, the cost is significantly high, and the NetFlow capabilities are lacking.
My advice is to go with AKIPS, rather than this solution.
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
Our primary and only use for this product is for network monitoring.
The product does what we need it to do, and definitely gives us heads-up on results and issues we are having in a timely manner.
The most valuable feature — and the value of the product — lie in its delivery of day-to-day, real-time information.
The user interface could be more friendly. When I say user-friendly I mean additional windows with information on additional day-to-day statistics.
It could also benefit the user more if it had additional features for reporting.
It's really stable. We haven't had any problems with stability at all.
It's a very scalable solution. We've used it with most of our network equipment monitoring and we haven't had any performance issues or any other problems.
We previously had WhatsUp Gold which is a really cheap solution. We needed something with better analytical abilities, better reporting, generally better information, and a better interface.
It is straightforward to set up.
I have not seen a measured return on investment. It's a great product. I definitely haven't had any negative experiences with it. I definitely think it helps with day to day operations. That could be a return on investment but it would be hard to measure.
I would give this solution about an eight out of ten. It's not perfect, but it's still a good product. We definitely enjoyed using it. It's fairly simple and easy to use, and it's pretty straightforward. It gives us a lot of information that we need.
We have about 800 schools and we use Statseeker to monitor the WAN router at each site. Up/down (uptime and downtime) is our biggest thing. After that, we use it for monitoring bandwidth, interface utilization and different things like that. We use it for all the statistics it can provide in real-time and for historical usage. We use those statistics to plan if there is a need for upgrades — things like that.
The product has improved our organization by simplifying monitoring and giving real-time alerts for issues we might not immediately be aware of otherwise. If we notice five devices with latency or errors, I wouldn't know that if I didn't command line into 800 devices and check every day. I can see the status on the dashboard and it just makes it easy to know where the problems are.
If we didn't have that capability by using Statseeker, then it would be very complex to monitor. We'd need to have another tool or manually log into every device to try to check things. And this product just does it all for us. That streamlines and improves our workload so that we only need to have two people in our office for the network team.
It improves availability. If a circuit goes down texts and email alerts get sent out. So, even if it's in the evening or we're not on premises, we'll know if something's down.
We use it all the time because it really helps.
The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is simple. I can modify the dashboard to show whatever I want to see. I could have a top list of devices with higher latency or things like that. So simplicity is the most valuable feature. I leave it up on one monitor full time in my office.
I can't think of any additional features that I'd like added to the product right now. However, one feature that was just added recently was one that we really wanted: a forecasting feature. It just looks at the trends of the past to forecast where it thinks you will be in the future. That's one that we're looking forward to. It is out there now, but we still haven't received it yet. We have to get another level of license or something for that.
Everything is very stable. The only issues we've ever had with stability is during upgrades. It seems like every upgrade we do, there's always a glitch here or there that we have to get fixed down the road.
The product scales very well. With a one gig connection we can do something like a million interfaces, so that works out well for us. With a very small server, we virtualized it and we can monitor a lot — everything we have and a lot more.
The tech support is a little lacking compared to some other products that I've worked with. If we have to we email to open a support case. Sometimes it seems like it can take a little while with a difficult case. Overall, it's not terrible, it's just not the best support we've ever had. It's not the worst either.
There was a different solution but that was before I was involved and I really wasn't in the decision-making process for choosing this solution.
I don't know the initial setup, but I do know about ongoing changes. We moved it to another physical server at one point and now it is virtualized. Those processes have been fairly easy. It is just a simple install and then we restore from a backup.
When I started, it was already deployed in our organization and we manage everything ourselves. We don't use anybody else for ongoing implementations and upgrades.
The product has helped us reduce costs overall. We pay yearly and I think Statseeker was purchased by somebody else a few years ago. Before that, we paid like $3,500 a year. After they were purchased, the licensee structure changed a little bit. Before that, we had educational pricing and after that, we had to go to a per-interface pricing structure. So, we had 20,000 interfaces that we could monitor with that license and we were in still in the $3,500 to $4,000 range. That is our yearly cost; I don't know if there was another initial cost. Now we're paying $4,500 or so because we upped our license to 25,000 interfaces.
I would rate the product as a nine out of ten. I really like the product. I think it does what it does very well. We have a couple of other products that we use for monitoring different specific things, but we always rely on Statseeker. I always have it up on my monitor and it's one of my favorite tools.
Our primary use for this solution is historical traffic wrapping.
This solution only handles a very small slice of what we actually need to monitor, so it is just another product in a set of products we use.
This solution helps in terms of troubleshooting, and you can do capacity planning with it.
The single pane of glass simplifies management because I don’t have to spend time supporting eight different products. I only have to support one.
The most valuable features are the tracking of trends and the presenting of graphs.
The granularity is not the best and it's not the worst. It’s fine
The user interface needs a great deal of improvement.
The stability of this solution is fine.
Scalability is horrible. The more stuff we add to Statseeker the more we have to sift through with a horrible interface. It doesn't scale well.
I am not the person that deals with technical support.
Switching had to do with the cost of supporting multiple products. If there is just one product that does it all then it's cheaper, in the long run, to maintain and manage.
I was not the one who deployed this solution, so I do not know.
We evaluated StableNet from Infosim, and we went with them because they had the most functionality of all of the different products that we use.
The interface for this solution is terrible and can be improved in literally any way.
I would rate this solution a three out of ten.
Our primary use for this solution is network monitoring.
This solution provides us with a quicker response in troubleshooting. It allows my engineers to do their job faster.
It reduces the troubleshooting time to pinpoint issues quicker. We now have a faster response to outages and thus faster remediation and up-time.
The most valuable features are that it is fast and easy to use.
This solution is very in-depth and granular. I can look at one-minute data points and it does not roll data up over time.
It may be helpful to have more options in the alerting section.
The stability of this solution is very good.
Scalability is very good.
Technical support is very good. They've always solved every issue that we've had.
We used a home-grown solution prior to this one, so switching to Stateseeker was easy. It is inexpensive, it fits the need, and it was very fast to implement.
The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.
We implemented this solution in-house.
The ROI comes from the reduction in time that our network engineers spend troubleshooting, leaving them to focus on more important issues.
We pay somewhere between $5,000 and $8,000 yearly in licensing fees.
We did evaluate one or two other options, but we chose this solution because of the ease of use and deployment, as well as the simple interface.
This is a great product for anybody looking for network monitoring, and I would highly recommend it.
Having that one-minute granularity, that doesn't roll up over time, is incredibly important if we want to do any historical troubleshooting.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
Our primary use for this solution is troubleshooting. We use it for logging and monitoring the routers and switches in the environment. It assists us with capacity planning.
This is a very cheap solution in order for us to accomplish what we needed to do in terms of providing visibility into the network. The visibility is such that it allows us to be a little proactive when it comes down to issues in the environment. It provides us with graphs and stats that we can use to make sure that there is not an issue with the network.
This solution complements our network monitoring. We have other products that provide a more comprehensive type of monitoring, and this one supplements that, especially for the retail environment.
It allows us to have some visibility into our service provider's equipment. It provides us the last-mile circuits down to the stores that we have.
It has helped our network admin team because it gives them visibility into the environment when there are issues. Workload-wise, I think it probably saves them time.
It just allows us to be more proactive. It gives a way to diagnose issues when they arise.
The most valuable feature of this solution is the simplicity of adding new devices into it.
I would like to see more comprehensive reporting and alerting. We do have other, more expensive solutions that handle that aspect of it. However, it would be nice to be able to specify baseline thresholds. If we're approaching those then we would be alerted, and it would probably help us with our job of troubleshooting.
This is a very stable solution. It hasn't gone down.
Scalability-wise, it's a monitoring platform so it's pulling these devices via SNMP. I would say if I needed an additional service to take on the workload then I would just provide additional storage. It's very simple to install.
This component is so easy that we rarely needed to call support. When we did contact them then they were very effective. No issues.
The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.
We deployed this solution with our in-house team.
We have seen ROI through the ability to troubleshoot more effectively. That is where the benefits came in.
When it came to selecting this solution, it came down to cost. Our licensing fees are on an annual basis.
We looked at several options including Voyance, Computer Associates eHealth, and SolarWinds. The Statseeker solution stood out because it was simple to use and easy to deploy.
This is a good solution in terms of ease of use and ease of deployment. It is a cost-effective solution that provides basic functionality. However, the bells and whistles that other vendors have will need to be provided or enhanced in Statseeker in order for it to compete.
The biggest lesson that I learned is how easy it is deployed.
I would rate this solution a six out of ten.
Our primary use case is for monitoring traffic.
This solution allowed us to track down trouble users.
Being able to look at individual devices is the feature we found most useful.
It's stable as far as I'm concerned.
Scalability has been fine for us, thus far.
I haven't had any personal experience with technical support yet, so I don't know.
The solution's granularity in terms of network visibility is pretty solid. I haven't used it too often lately though. I'm not in that section of the organization anymore.
I don't know that the solution has had much of an impact on the complexity of our network monitoring. It's just another tool we can use.
I'm sure Statseeker has helped a little bit with our network availability, at some point.
From my experience, I'd give it an eight out of ten. It has worked when I needed it to.
Our primary use case for this solution is network monitoring.
We have Statseeker alerts emailed to a Google group, and one of the members of that group is a Slack integration. This means that we get instant alerts on Slack, from Statseeker, whenever an event happens.
All of our UPS units are set to send SNMP traps to Statseeker whenever their batteries are in need of replacement, or they start failing self-tests. Statseeker then generates an alert based on that trap, which proactively tells our UPS people that this battery is in trouble.
The most valuable feature is the ping going out every second, which gives us almost instantaneous alerting.
The user interface allows us to sort according to the source of network packets, which helps us to quickly narrow down problems.
This solution would be improved with better automatic discovery for ping-only devices. Every time we add an access point, which is a ping-only device, we also have to remember to add it to Statseeker. It would be very helpful if while doing a ping sweep of our network, once Statseeker discovers a new device, it performed a reverse DNS lookup on the IP address to get the hostname and then automatically add it.
The stability of this solution is awesome. Except when it comes time for upgrades, we don't touch it and it just keeps going.
We are a smaller enterprise, but we're watching approximately fifteen-thousand switchboards with no problem at all. The scalability is awesome.
Technical support for this solution is great.
We have been using Statseeker the entire time that I have been with the company.
I was not with the company for the initial setup and deployment.
We receive discounted pricing for being an educational user. Compared to other solutions such as Zabbix and AKiPS, this solution is very well priced.
We have looked at a couple of other solutions like Zabbix and AKiPS, and Statseeker has consistently underpriced everybody.
If this solution offers a trial then I would suggest giving it a try. In my experience, there is not much better than this.
We set a two-minute bundle time so that we don't get completely inundated with alerts.
There is a bug we have encountered, where if we accidentally add a ping-only device as an SNMP device, and then that device goes down, it doesn't report back as "down".
Overall, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
I was primarily using this solution for network traffic analysis. We are switching to another product.
If somebody is complaining about slow networking then this solution allows us to see various ports to find out whether they are being overloaded.
The most valuable feature is the ability to look at historical traffic.
A more user-friendly interface would help because it is sometimes difficult to find specific data that you are looking for. It would be nice if I could easily select individual interfaces.
It would be helpful to be able to view specific ports, more easily.
From what we have discovered, it is not really a single pane of glass.
Stability-wise, this is a good solution.
I do not feel that this solution is very scalable. It is sometimes hard to drill down and find specific interfaces that you need to track.
I have not dealt with their technical support.
We did not use another solution prior to this one. However, we are switching from Statseeker to Observium. The reason for the switch is that in Observium, the interface is really well-refined. You can select individual interfaces and you can pull up graphs really easily.
I was not part of the initial setup.
One of our in-house staff performed the setup.
I have not tracked the ROI.
This is a solution that is useful when you can find the information. It would benefit from being able to view specific ports more easily.
For my recommendation, I would suggest Observium over this solution.
I would rate this solution a five out of ten.
Our primary use case for this solution is network alerting.
This solution helps us to track down problems faster. Whether it is a down network switch or a down router, we can get back online faster for the customers.
When we are alerted as to something going down, it could just be power related or a circuit from the ISP. After finding out that it is down, five minutes later I might get an alert to say that it’s back up. This saves me the hassle of having to contact the customer.
The most valuable feature is the alerts that happen when something goes offline, such as a network switch, router, or wireless controller. We also get alerts for temperature issues and IDFs.
I would like to see the solution incorporate diagnosis of the workstation. A lot of times, the Network Engineer will blame the network first, even though it might be a desktop problem. For example, the drivers might be outdated, the memory is horrible, or the CPU is overwhelmed.
I would like to see all of the reports put up in a nice, GUI format, that shows whether devices are up or down, and the severity of any problems.
This is a very stable solution.
This is a very scalable product that we could make even more use of. It could, for example, monitor all of our wireless access points, but we don't use it for that. Potentially, we would be overwhelmed with this much information. We use this solution mostly for switches, routers, and controllers.
I have not spoken with their technical support, as it is another person on my team who administers the solution.
We use other solutions to handle different devices. For example, we run SolarWinds and Network Reporter. We use Cisco Prime to monitor and report on our wireless access points. Cisco Prime also reports on switches and routers, but it would be nice to consolidate everything down to one or two products.
As our enterprise continued to get larger, we needed a solution that could support and inform us on a lot of devices. This is why we implemented this solution.
I did not perform the initial setup, but my understanding is that it was straightforward.
We handled the implementation and deployment in-house.
I would recommend this solution because I like the alerting functionality for systems that are down or up.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Our primary use case for this solution is fault management.
This solution has helped us to proactively identify issues and push some of those fixes down to tier one.
The most valuable features are the quick retrieval of performance data, and its ability to poll tens of thousands of interfaces at short intervals.
The single pane of glass for fault and performance data is very helpful.
I would like to see NetFlow improved, with better reporting capabilities that are similar to Scrutinizer.
I would like to see some layer two and layer three topology mappings, similar to what NNMi and SolarWinds presents. For fault, it's very good, but for tier one, they like to see pictures.
This is a very stable solution.
The scalability of this solution is very good.
I would rate their technical support a nine out of ten.
We used HP NNMi prior to this solution. However, they out-priced themselves so we switched.
The initial setup for this solution is straightforward. This is a turnkey solution and it is very easy to deploy.
I implemented the solution myself.
We have not seen ROI.
We have used SolarWinds and HP NNMi. We decided that Statseeker was by far the best solution.
My suggestion for anybody considering this solution is to evaluate at least four other products to see what works best.
I think that the NetFlow portion of the solution needs to be enhanced, but the fault and performance stuff is solid.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
We primarily use this solution for monitoring. We check primarily for failures or latency in the network.
This solution helps us to find the problem endpoints sooner.
Depending on how you sort your data, you can have a problem area come up to the top of your list. It also depends on what you are polling for, such as interface utilization, packet drops, or errors.
The most valuable feature is the dashboard, where you have everything right there on the screen.
I would like to see a friendlier user interface in the administration tool.
This solution is pretty stable, and we haven't really had any problems.
I have not used technical support for this solution.
We did not use another solution prior to this one.
I was not involved in the initial setup of this solution.
One of our in-house teams handled the implementation.
I would recommend this product. It does what it is supposed to do.
This solution will help to find problem endpoints sooner, or other issues such as throughput and network congestion.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
We primarily use this solution for monitoring. We use the Mac version.
Our investment in this solution was customer-driven. When we have a request from a client business we look at what we have. If we cannot satisfy the request then we look into investments such as this.
The monitoring provided by this solution helps us to track down and solve issues.
The most valuable feature of this solution is NetFlow.
In terms of being able to see everything at once, Statseeker is not quite there yet.
It would be very nice to have the Cisco ACI option included in the regular license.
The newer version has bugs in a feature that I want to use, so I am unable to upgrade from my current version because of that. They are aware of this problem and will let me know once it is solved.
The stability of this solution is great compared to other solutions, such as SolarWinds. Statseeker is one step further.
Technical support is great, and I don't think that I'm going to have an issue with them.
In the past, we used SolarWinds and find that Statseeker is more stable.
The initial setup for this solution is straightforward. Everything is online, and you simply follow the instructions on the web page step-by-step. It is very clear and nothing is difficult.
We performed the deployment in-house.
We pay a yearly maintenance fee of approximately $40,000 USD.
The Cisco ACI option is not included in the regular maintenance fees.
We evaluated ThousdandEyes and decided that it was not quite as mature as Statseeker, so we opted for this solution.
We also considered Splunk.
While I would recommend this software to a colleague, I would also suggest running different products at the same time to see what works best.
I like this solution because I have used different products and I find this one is simpler.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Our primary use of Statseeker is for our interface. In our data center, we are typically a Cisco shop. We can now look thirty days into the future based on past stats of trends or fashion.
If we have 10 servers in the field office, we can jump up to twenty based on utilization. We have the evidence. It is a lot of manual work to create those reports, but a bit easier now.
Statseeker helps solve an asymmetrical routing issue we had before. We could see traffic going out of one interface, but not coming back in.
An operations guy made a change and told us it was good. We didn't check it, we had too much going on. When I clicked in and looked at the traffic, you could tell it wasn't right. I had to log in and correct them so. That is a pretty good example of basic metrical routing.
Statseeker is quick and very simple to use. We want to keep it like that. It has to be simple.
The solution has affected our workload with all our network admin teams. They don't use this tool as much as I probably would like them to use it for initial troubleshooting.
Statseeker helps to quickly see if you have a spike or something going on. In the future, we need to get NetFlow in the tool so we can see what the IP is.
This solution hasn't affected our network availability. It's helped because we can see when things go down or when things come up. If we have a circuit maxed out, we can reroute the traffic, and do different things like that.
For a reduced cost, it is not possible because our network is so big and part interface. Maybe if we got a single router in the field office it would reduce the cost.
It's probably not a model we are going to go with because we like to have dual connectivity, dual routers, and dual switches set up.
With Statseeker I'd like to see some flow, i.e. what's tuning-up the network. The trend I like is managing the traffic load by going to the cloud.
Statseeker tells you routing-wise how things are working, in terms of transmit and receive. You shouldn't be transmitting more than you are receiving. It depends on the traffic, but it should just mix and match.
With Statseeker, we caught a lot of issues. We have a lot of operational issues.
The stability of the solution is up and running. We had once had an issue a couple of years ago with upgrading the code. Resolved it within ten minutes.
It does scale well. You have to pay for your account, but I had no issues. We've used this tool for probably eight years, maybe ten.
The scalability of the solution helped us to implement SDN. It's going to take probably until next year. We have too many other projects going on right now.
We have multiple data centers and multiple campus locations. We have dual wire carriers. We can see transmit coming in, receipt coming out.
I have Statseeker set up for routing. I can see when the interface goes down. Then the traffic flow over onto the other router. It's nice to have that.
Statseeker tech support was bad around 2-3 years ago. I have had the new support for maybe 6 months to a year. I'll be upgrading the codes. I haven't rung customer support in a year or so.
For software and hardware, how we spend the money depends on demand and what we have going on. One year, we could have campus refresh, and if we have a little bit of change left over we'd spend it on software. We have had Statseeker as long as 8-9 years ago.
The initial setup was straightforward. We did discovery of how many devices go onto a monitor. It didn't take too long to do it.
We bought directly from in-house sales, the Australian guys.
We have sixteen to twenty-thousand interfaces at a minimum.
Statseeker reduces the complexity of your network monitoring. It is easy. You don't have to go in and show the guys how to log in and check this and that. They can just click whichever router is required for the interface.
I would like a single pane of glass. It's not there. We have so many devices. We have a huge network. We go over fifty thousand nodes in the US, UK, Ireland, and Poland.
We use different tools. Statseeker is one of them. Not all of them offer a single pane of glass for administration. You have to click in, dive in, and dig into the ways.
On a scale from 1 to 10, I'd rate Statseeker with a 9 based on what I have seen there now. I'd like to get the flow. I'd like to get more visibility. It's probably me being harsh. But the tool works. I am very happy with it.
We use Statseeker to monitor all the devices on our network. This includes:
We want to know exactly when they go down.
In terms of network visibility, Statseeker can be very granular. We can tell it exactly where we want it to go and where we want it to check, or it can do an SNMP walk and find out where everything is. It's very detailed.
I find the speed of notification most valuable with using Statseeker. It's very quick with its notifications and the history is easily accessible. The history of outages, how long something's been down, how long something's been up. It has all that information there for us.
Now we know when things go down before we are called and told that something's not working. It allows us to fix something before our customer notices it's broken.
I would like the ability to update the dashboard. I would also like the ability to access via an API. Then I could produce a dashboard that my C level can understand. This is just so they can go and refresh whenever they want to and see what things look like.
The stability of Statseeker is rock solid.
Statseeker would scale just fine. I just don't need it for more than what I have it for. It would scale great. It's fast, light, and thin.
We've done some WAN stuff, but are just getting into SDN.
When I had to use Statseeker technical support, it was good. However, in the beginning, the hours were a little strange because they're in Australia. For me on the East Coast, that's almost as far away as I could be.
Now since they're in San Diego as well, I'm sure it will be fine. I haven't had to call them for tech support very often.
I deployed Statseeker myself. It was a little complex. Someone was there to walk me through it. I would never have figured out how to do certain things if it wasn't for the person that was on the phone helping me. As long as they're providing that, then it's good.
It's probably $5K a year for the license.
SolarWinds was on my shortlist. I was almost in with them. I had done some free things using Splunk etc. Once I saw the demonstration in the Cisco lab, I knew this would be the easiest solution for me to deploy and use.
Overall, Statseeker has reduced the complexity of our network monitoring once it's installed. It provides a single pane of glass to go and look at a snapshot if anything's down or having any transitions, i.e. within the last hour or last twenty-four hours.
You can look at the data coordinator and if you see something red, you know something's wrong. If you don't see anything red, you know nothing's wrong. It just takes a glance. Even our help desk, if they're not in-network experienced, they can tell if something's down.
The single pane of glass for traditional and SDN affects our network management by making it easier to go to one place to be able to look at something as opposed to checking disparate systems all over the place.
For the workload of our network admin team, Statseeker has been a big help. Statseeker did reduce the amount of work they had to do. Even more, it focused them on what they had to do. Instead of chasing their tails, they could work on something that needed to be done.
For our network availability, we see things that are up and down, like if something needs to be replaced or fixed. Everything stays up longer now. We don't have a lot of SDN.
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Statseeker a nine. I like it a lot, especially the area where you define reports and where you set up the email alerts.
The language used to formulate the email when you send it out could be done a little better. Statseeker gives you results that you can understand very quickly.
The biggest lesson that we've learned from using this solution is that you can't be everywhere at once, but this can.
Our primary use for this solution is to watch and record ports for the entire network.
We are now able to easily track where problems are with bandwidth and port errors, rather than having to do a lot of diagnostics.
The most valuable feature is its ease of use.
I would like to see fully automatic updates so that our version is always current.
The stability of this solution is excellent.
The scalability seems to be pretty good.
Technical support for this solution is good. Sometimes the response times need to be quicker, but their technical knowledge is very good.
Prior to using this solution, we were doing scripting to record bandwidth numbers, and this made things a whole lot simpler.
The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.
We performed the implementation in-house.
We do not have the current version of this solution, but I would love for us to get it.
If you want something that is easy to use and catches the basics, especially for your first line people, then this is the product to go with.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
We primarily use this solution for polling and interface utilization.
This solution is used by our network operations center to identify down interfaces. It also allows us to predict the capacity on WAN circuits, as well as other circuits, to help us plan for upgrading.
The most valuable feature of this solution is the historical data and the fact that it doesn't average it when it saves it.
The user interface needs to be made more intuitive.
The stability of this solution has been great.
With respect to the scalability of this solution, I find that it is good.
I have not dealt with them directly, although one of my colleagues has, and it sounds like it's been good.
We did not use another solution prior to this one.
The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.
I can't say what we would have saved, in terms of money, but it's been a productive tool for the purpose that we bought it. It has been good for us.
We considered SolarWinds, but my counterpart was familiar with this solution from a former job and brought it in.
This is a solid and reliable solution, but it's not intuitive with respect to some of the setup and some of the selection for reports. Eventually, you can work through it.
I would rate this solution a seven and a half out of ten.
Our primary use of Statseeker is for monitoring and the utilization of our network devices. We initially got Statseeker because we needed more visibility and better historical data.
I believe Statseeker has reduced the complexity of our network monitoring. Just one pane of glass allows you to go back in time to look at different patterns.
The solution has affected the workload of the network administrators in a positive way, letting them go back in time and see real-time stats.
Statseeker has provided real-time alerts and on-demand graphs, improving our network availability.
Being able to look back historically at the uptime and downtime is invaluable.
I love the solution's granularity. It's great.
I believe that Statseeker's support for both traditional and SDN reduces costs. I think it might reduce costs by 75%.
I haven't had any issues since I've been using it.
We're a pretty large organization and it scales great with us.
I don't think I have ever used tech support with Statseeker.
We haven't seen an ROI.
SolarWinds and Ipswitch were on our shortlist before we chose Statseeker.
Try to find someone who's worked with the solution, get their take on it, and maybe try to compare it with a different solution to see the pros and cons.
I would rate this as an eight out of ten. There are no perfect products out there, but Statseeker has been great. I've been using it for a few months now and it's served our purposes.
Our main use of Statseeker is for verifying traffic after several upgrades or failures.
We recently had a cluster of firewalls that wigged out and we were able to pinpoint it in a matter of minutes to find which one wigged out.
Statseeker helps reduce the complexity of our network monitoring because it's real-time, or somewhat real-time, so we're able to see stuff quickly and react to it.
I think it's reduced the workload of our network admin team, in the fact that they're able to verify relatively quick the capacity and utilization of the links.
The graphics and trends are the most valuable for us.
The solution's granularity has great detail, in terms of network visibility.
I would like to have soft alarming. If an inner-base all of a sudden triggers a threshold, we have to rely on a lot of other tools and then we go into Statseeker to verify it. If Statseeker would confirm it preemptively and trigger it into our network panel, that would be nice.
Training also has some room for improvement.
I've been very impressed with stability.
Previously, we used a variety of tools like some WAN and a lot of other in-house tools, but this is the one that we use a lot for confirmation.
The solution's support for both traditional and SDA reduces cost for us. I would say it has saved us about a quarter of a million dollars.
However, we have not yet seen an ROI.
It would definitely be a yearly licensing cost, but I don't know what it is.
Go into it with your eyes open and know what you're looking for. The biggest lesson is learning how to group everything together. We've got so many interfaces plugged into this device, it's kind of hard to hunt and peck. It'd be nice to know that going into it.
I would rate Statseeker as a nine out of ten.
We use it for bandwidth monitoring and email alerts when there are significant events like interfaces or devices that are down. Those are our big use cases.
Just recently, we were having some issues with a certain site, and it was only Statseeker that showed us what the problem was. It was a lot of errors on a certain circuit. Then we were able to resolve that.
There are other tools for network monitoring, but not to the level that Statseeker does. It tends to consolidate a lot of the questions that we would be going to other tools for. It helps in picking and choosing the answer.
I think this solution has reduced the workload time of our network admin team. It reduces the troubleshooting time when there is a problem.
I would like to think that it's increased our network availability.
The most valuable feature to me is that the data is there and you can easily get to it. I don't have to worry about a whole lot of maintenance for the product, it just seems to always work.
I'm very satisfied with the solution's granularity in terms of network visibility. As far as granularity, it's the best out there.
Maybe they could provide a little bit more flexibility on creating custom dashboards.
The only other thing that I wish that they would implement soon is that they don't support SNMPv3 TRAPs. I would like to see that back in.
It's very stable.
It tends to be very scalable, I don't have any problems at all. We have thousands of devices on it and we can easily add more.
It's very good. I very rarely use it, but when I do, they're very helpful.
I don't remember the initial setup, but upgrades are pretty straightforward.
We did the implementation ourselves.
I think Statseeker's support for traditional networks reduces cost. It reduces cost because we don't have to have as many people trying to troubleshoot issues. It also helps us forecast if we need bandwidth upgrades or something like that. This means the company isn't dragged down by a circuit that's overloaded.
I would say, last year we probably saved about $100,000 - $150,000.
We have permanent licenses so there's really no cost, other than ongoing maintenance. When I think about it, that's running us about $20,000 a year.
I would definitely advise them to look closely at it because it's been a benefit to us and I believe that there is a lot of value there, especially if you're in a bandwidth-constrained environment. It's not as common nowadays, but back in the day when people were trying to push as much as they could down a single T1 line, it was a little bit more critical.
The biggest lesson I've learned is that everything is always changing on your network and Statseeker tends to show these things before they become bad things. So they anticipate, or proactively identify the problem, or at least give you a head's up that it's likely to be an issue.
I love it. I would give it a nine-plus out of ten.
We use it for network monitoring, mainly for our core in-campus devices.
Statseeker helps us in diagnosing problems. For example, if you see a heavy amount of traffic on a link, it's really easy in Statseeker to reverse engineer where that traffic is coming from, and troubleshoot your way backwards, hop by hop, along the path.
In terms of network complexity, this solution just helps. You're dealing with real data. With other tools, everything's rolled up into averages and it can mask some issues at times. We find it really useful to be able to get down to that per-minute statistics because it gives you a more realistic view of what's going on.
I don't think it has affected our availability. It's really just getting us the monitoring details.
The most important feature for us is how fast this solution is, as well as the granularity that you can get to, such as per-minute statistics. These are really useful for us.
This solution is fantastic in terms of granularity of network visibility. We also have SolarWinds Orion in our environment. Statseeker closed it away, in terms of performance and how granular you can get with the statistics.
The interface could improve a little bit. I find with new users, I tend to have to spend a bit of time walking them through how to use the interface. It could be a little more user-friendly. Once you get it, you get it, but it seems to take a bit of time. It's not super intuitive for new users.
In terms of additional features, in our environment, we run Cisco ONS, Optical Networking System. There are certain statistics that you can pull from those devices, and it's a less common platform, so I don't think there's a lot of support for the ONS. It would be handy for us to have ONS support within Statseeker.
It would be nice if they open it up for additional support with different vendors.
Its scalability is great. The only limitation that we've ran into is the licensing with the number of interfaces that we're licensed for. But we run it on some fairly old server hardware, and it works just fine. That's with 30,000 interfaces.
It's a fairly easy product to support. We just install it and it kind of runs. So we haven't really had to spend much time with care and feeding other than trying to upgrade it manually.
It's been very good. I've only had to engage them once or twice during the initial install, but both times it was a positive experience.
We were having trouble getting meaningful statistics out of our other monitoring solutions.
We used SolarWinds Orion and we still use it to some extent for other purposes. We switched to get that granularity that Statseeker provides. I find it really onerous to get meaningful data out of Orion. The data is there, but it takes a long time to get at, and the performance isn't quite there. Statseeker is very fast.
It's very easy. Just a simple install. You put the CD in, walk through it and it's up and running.
We did it ourselves.
I think we have seen a return on our investment in terms of productivity gained from our operational team. I don't think I have any hard numbers to share, but just observing from within the operations team, I see how much quicker they're able to access the information.
I can't remember what the initial cost was, but I think we paid $5,000 to $10,000 a year in maintenance.
I'd absolutely recommend it. It's a great product.
The biggest lesson I've learned from using Statseeker is the fact that granularity matters. If you look at a problem over 15-minute averages, or 30-minute averages, you don't get the same information. You don't reach the same conclusions that you do if you're working on one-minutes averages.
I would rate this as a nine out of ten. It's really easy to use. We don't need to spend a lot of time trying to keep it up-to-date or maintained or anything like that. It just really runs in the background and it's there when we need it.
Capacity management of devices and carriage services.
Summary Reports provide a quick way to identify where potential issues are. Drill-downs provide more granular details very quickly.
Detailed data can be hard to extract in CSV form. Sometimes, being able to dump down raw data would be good so various time periods across a longer period could be analysed. At present, data can be presented within Statseeker, but there is lots of "white space" between data points.
No issues with stability.
No issues with scalability.
Excellent. Support team is brilliant. Always responsive. Always positive.
Currently using a variety of tools across multiple accounts.
We are using the Professional edition but would love to upgrade to the higher level Enterprise, as having the full feature set would be the way to go.
Understand what your outputs and customer requirements are first. Then configure the environment to support those needs.
Interface monitoring, mainly for interface statistics. We use it for monitoring up/down, capacity management, bandwidth utilization, reporting.
Prior to using it, the company was using something really basic, it was very slow and it didn't have descriptive statistics at all. Statseeker provides a lot more graphics, the reports are very user friendly, the tools are very easy to use, and it's very quick.
The most important feature for us is the interface statistics, because our customer normally asks us for bandwidth utilization reports. Statseeker has very descriptive transmit and receive information.
I spoke to James Wells from Statseeker. We use an application called Dynatrace, which was formerly Compuware, and he was saying that they might be able to integrate Statseeker with Dynatrace. What Dynatrace does is application monitoring. So if we went to look at say some statistics and we could see some high traffic, we could drill down into that traffic and then down to the application. So James was saying that could be possible, and that would be a great improvement.
Very stable, and the support has been fantastic. Every time I've had an issue they've always assisted me straight away.
Not at all, it's one of the best tools I have. It's so quick I could run reports in a matter of seconds, whereas with some of the other systems they take minutes. Sometimes they time out. With Statseeker, I could do the last year's reports in a couple of minutes. Very happy with it.
They always give me a call, and they're always at hand if I need help. Last time I did an upgrade they were on the phone right away, assisting me with almost every step, you could say. Tech support has been fantastic. I've had issues where backups have failed and they've sat with me to work out the problem. So very good.
They used a system called Cacti and it wasn't user friendly. To get to an interface it took a long time. You'd go to the router and from the router you had to find the interface. It wasn't as easy as Statseeker. With Statseeker you can just click on a router or switch, click on the Reporting Tool and it will show every single interface and you just click on the one you want. With this one you had to physically find them. The graphs weren't very good at all. It didn't compare.
We now feel the pricing is a good value. Previously we had a just a normal license but now we've got an Enterprise license. Since the Enterprise, it's been a lot better value. We did think it was pretty expensive before, but with the Enterprise license it's almost less than half that price.
If you have a number of accounts within the organization that use Statseeker, I would suggest get the Enterprise license.
Go for it. I recommend it. I think it's great value.
It's an easy tool to use. Support is fantastic and Statseeker are always looking to improve. We've had a few meetings where they always ask for suggestions on how they can improve their system to tailor it to customers' requirements.
The fact that it doesn't aggregate the information up, it's very good at troubleshooting. The fact that you have all the information there, it's very easy if you require the information to go back and get it. It's very quick when you're doing a report or when you're looking at something, it's very quick to give you the information. How it improves how we function: its ease of use and its responsiveness.
The most important feature is just the fact that it doesn't aggregate the information up, and I can look at detailed information going back quite a long time. I find that useful in my role.
Overall it is quite stable when. The main issue I've seen, in the last six months to a year, is when I upgrade I seem to be hitting bugs. The upgrade won't go smoothly and I have to engage support. These things happen when you upgrade, it's not the end of the world, but from a stability point of view, the only time I've so far, is during upgrades. And there have been one or two bugs that I've seen across the years, but overall it's quite a stable product.
At least in our deployment, I wouldn't say we've had any scalability issues as of yet. For our environment it seems to be okay.
I have to say they're quite very good. I've never had any issues getting in contact with them. They're quite responsive, so I can't really complain about that.
I've been using the same product in my environment for all the time I've been here.
As Statseeker has released extra features into the product, we have migrated sections of other tools. We have stopped using other tools for various things that we migrated into Statseeker. Why did we switch? It came back to either quickness of reporting, or the fact that other tools did aggregate the information up over a timeframe; with Statseeker we can go back over a time and actually have a look at stuff. The previous product we were using, it would age out the information or aggregate the information up. So, we weren't able to look back in an extended timeframe.
I haven't had to set up the product myself. I've had to build a new server and migrate from the old server to the new server. If I was to treat that as an installation, it was relatively okay, apart from running into one or two technical issues which I had to troubleshoot and to fix. Once I got passed that technical issue, to actually install the product was relatively simple, and to get it up and running was relatively simple.
One thing that needs improvement is how it's licensed. I understand historically the company licensed it off a same charge for everyone. I understand the company needs to make money, but how they introduced the tiered licensing model, and then multiple layers of licensing was a bit of an issue. So, on the whole, coming up with a licensing model that isn't confusing and complicated and is easy to understand would be one way to improve the product.
In terms of licensing, I would say, talk to Statseeker and find out because historically there was multiple layers of licensing. It's confusing. Read through it, try and understand it, ask lots of questions, and make up your mind what you want to do.
They have told me lately that they're changing how they license stuff, but they haven't made that - as I understand it - in their marketing material public knowledge as of yet.
But I would basically say, if somebody was asking me what do I think of the licensing, I would say that at the moment it's a bit convoluted. It's confusing. Some of their basic licensing model is a bit of a ripoff. If you go over five or ten support calls in the basic licensing model they start charging you for support calls. I think that's a bit rich.
They need to make sure they don't price themselves out of market. They've been quite flexible in the last six months, and they've been good in negotiating the costs, but those are my two main things: making the licensing model easier to understand, and keeping their cost competitive compared to the rest of the market.
Up until we actually talked to Statseeker, and Statseeker came and gave us an enterprise licensing model for multiple accounts, I would have said the pricing was not good value. The fact they've come to the party now and given us a very good discount, I would say it's probably about right, the pricing they're giving us now. But the retail pricing, if I went out and, as a separate company, and asked for pricing for one account, I probably would say their retail pricing is not competitive. The fact that they've given us a discount now because we have multiple servers across multiple accounts, I would say that pricing is about right, but not their retail pricing. It's too expensive.
I would say you would need to understand the licensing model and figure out which one you want to buy and for what reasons. It's not a simple, "Just sign up."
I came into the environment after it was already built. We did compare it against another product to see if the other product could take over from Statseeker, and we determined that that was not possible. We have that other product in our environment and it does other tasks that Statseeker can't do. So, when we evaluated another product against it, we found it wasn't up to what Statseeker could do.
I do know of one or two products out in the market that are targeting themselves at the same niche that Statseeker has. That being said, I have not really played around with Statseeker's competitors and played them off each other as of yet.
From an end-user point of view, I would say it's fairly intuitive once you've got it up and running, once you've spent some time on it. It's a fairly intuitive product as to how to generate reports. It just takes time to work your way through it. Maybe you could get a trainer or a subject matter expert to show people how to do stuff, but the more time you spend on the product, the more you get to understand it, and the easier it is to use. It's not super-complicated to use. There's a reasonable number of instruction videos from Statseeker. It's not a complicated product to use from an end-user perspective and to get people up to scratch.
If you need a product that's able to monitor all the ports in your environment or all the ports that you want, this is a great product to use. Statseeker is quite flexible in tailoring the product, spending time tailoring the product with you. It's fairly low maintenance. It's quite quick.
It's a good tool at what it does, but it's not a tool that you would install in a network operation center to deliver alerts to your tier-1 operators. It's not a Zenoss or an HPE OVO, it's more of a tool that's an eyes-on-glass type of thing. It works in its own niche.
My advice would be, you have to figure out what you actually want the tool to do, and whether or not what you want is what Statseeker is going to give you. We have multiple tools in our environment, which address separate areas, and Statseeker can't do everything. So before you buy it, figure out if the capability the product has is actually what you're trying to address.
I'd give it an eight out of 10, and the reason is it's a very all round good product, but for quite a long time the impression that we got was they weren't developing the product. There weren't any new features coming out. Now that being said, over the last year or two, it seems like they've had new personnel come on board, and they've started to put in new features, and started to be more customer focused; they've started to develop the product. But if they want to stay in the market, in my opinion, they need to keep on developing the product and adding features, because there are other players out in the market that they seem to be constantly adding new features and tweaking the product on quite a regular basis.
That being said, I haven't tried the competitors' products, but it seems to me, the other players in the market are developing product at a rapid pace. So they need to keep up.
It's servicing our requirements at the moment and Statseeker is very flexible. When we ask them, "Can you put this feature in?" they'll work with us and help us out, but we're just one account. What I'm trying to say is, I could see how, if I was a person comparing products at the moment, if there was a fresh environment, I would probably play Statseeker off against the other main competitor, which I believe is AKIPS, and I would tick which one I like the most and serves my need the best, and to be honest it might not be Statseeker.
Statseeker is a great product. It's doing what we need. But if we wanted to switch over to another product it would require a lot of work, because there is all sorts of stuff we do with Statseeker which we would have to rewrite. We're a happy enough customer at the moment, but that might not be the case if I went somewhere else and somebody said to me, "You need to buy a product." Would I necessarily buy Statseeker? Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. That's why I'm giving it an eight, because I'm not automatically saying I'm going to implement this wherever I go. If I need to address an issue that Statseeker can help me out with, and if a company was coming to me saying, "This is your budget," then I would compare it with other products beforehand.
The primary use of Statseeker is to monitor network performance on physical, data, and network layers of the network.
It improved departmental network operation and support, and delivered a better service to my customers, improving their businesses.
These are most valuable as they can provide more visibility into network performance, and for network troubleshooting.
Also, the easy-to-use Reporting feature is so important for presenting network performance to clients and business managers.
Statseeker presents a comprehensive view on a dashboard of how the network is performing. It collects three layers (physical, data link, and network) of data from network devices. This data is processed to produce informative and easy-to-read reports.
It could use more features on Netflow analyser, such as time series graphs and a single network export UDP port and UDP forwarding.
Also, more private MIB object support such as WAN optimisation performance and wireless.
I haven't encountered any stability issues for many years.
I haven't encountered any scalability issues. Generating a large report is so quick.
I give top marks to their great support.
Initial setup is so simple and ready to use.
Pricing isn't expensive; very reasonable.
I am happy to advise others to use this product for monitoring their networks, as it is working so well. It is easy to use and a great value for investment.
Proactive reports about outages and utilization.
Outages: It catches frequent flapping of the network and provides detailed reports of outages.
Configuration management: In configuration management it would be helpful if it would backup configuration files (running and start-up configuration) for devices. (Not sure if this is already available in the latest version).
No issues with stability.
No issues with scalability.
Technical support is excellent, the staff is qualified and responses times are very good. They always reply to our inquires in detail.
We switched due to performance.
Initial setup is very straightforward.
Pricing is reasonable but licensing should unlimited.
Other options are not so easy to use and manage. A single server handles more than 5000 nodes.
It is very scalable, stable, easy to use and manage.
It is a good monitoring tool. It does the job.
It helps us track the status of over 1200 devices in multiple geographical locations.
Integration including ability to do network diagrams.
We have been using this solution for three years.
We had a stability issue. It seems to occasionally hiccup with duplicate IPs.
There weren't really any issues with scalability.
Technical support, at least for me, has been good. No complaints on technical support.
I was using SolarWinds NPM/NCM. This department was already using Statseeker and didn’t want to change.
It’s getting better, but it still requires some low-level Unix command line tweaking occasionally. I’ve seen two Statseeker techs work several hours to fix it.
Interface counting/reporting with Juniper switches adds TWO interfaces for every single interface. That is killing our licensing. I’ve had to tweak removing some interfaces that I don’t want to track.
I worked with SolarWinds for ten years.
Know Unix. It’s a must.
SNMP monitoring for up/down locations and bandwidth monitoring: We are able to see problems before they start.
We can be proactive with our calls to customers to see what’s going on in their location before they might even know there is a problem.
The tool is pretty good as it is. It monitors everything we need it to on a day-to-day basis. You know, if I had to complain about anything, it would be the documentation. The videos are good but I’m a manual-reader kind of guy. A comprehensive document, including how-to’s, would be a great addition.
When it comes to documentation I think of Cisco as being the gold-standard.
You can go to their website, search for what you need and within a few click be at a document that will explain, step-by-step what you need to do.
Statseekers’ videos are useful for the basics but when you start getting into details I find there isn’t a lot of documentation.
Of course this might just be a matter of me not being able to find it on the website. Which again comes down to me being able to search the available documentation. Either by an index-type search or clicking on a screenshot of a Statseeker screenshot and getting some sort of help context.
We have used the solution for two years.
We haven't encountered any issues with stability. I have to say Statseeker has been the most stable of all the applications we use for monitoring.
We have not yet encountered any issues with scalability. We’re still a small customer and I only monitor 20,000 or so interfaces.
We have always been using Statseeker.
Our network is a little special so we have to use a host file, which is burdensome but manageable.
The product seems comparable to other similar solutions, but I don’t pay the bills. I just get to spend the money.
There is no high availability over multiple locations (datacenters) and if you want to maintain what is monitored, I suggest you use the host file. Automatic has never really worked the way I expected it to.
I work in a distributed simulation. It's a much smaller network and it is a closed one. It's classified and it's behind encryption devices. You can't actually get there from the outside.
We had a unique situation here. We are using this solution with distributed simulation for military purposes. Packet loss is equated with a lack of credibility in your simulation. You basically can't trust the data if you lose packets.
After a lot of testing and verification, we decided that we cannot afford more than 1% packet loss. You can't say zero, because zero isn't possible to achieve. We tested and we said that if 1% packet loss is all we have, then that's what we can live with.
The question we had was how we can measure the 1% data loss in a distributed environment. We instrumented all of the sites with this solution. There are about 25 sites in the hub. The interface is going to decide. We're collecting data on that. I worked with the development team in Australia to give us a script that exports the data for us so we can actually obtain the data. We made our own dashboard out of it. It's a dashboard, or a line chart, that shows the usage on each interface, but all of the lines are on one graph.
Statseeker didn't have that capability. I don't know if they have that now. Rather than looking at 25 charts and trying to figure out which one might be going over 50 MB, we put all of the charts into one chart. We had one inbound and one outbound chart, and we normalized it to 50 MB so we would see, at one glance, if somebody is overriding. One person overriding ruins the whole experiment. This was a unique use of Statseeker.
It's different than what most IT enterprise people use it for. They look at their environments one at a time. They look at one connection from a server to a client. In our case, we wanted to see all of it combined into one. We can't afford any losses. even at the most insignificant site, a loss means losing the credibility of the event.
It's very expensive to set these up. It costs a couple million dollars for each experiment that runs only for two weeks out of the year. We can't afford any loss during that time. The best choice for that was Statseeker. We exported the data in real time and we're putting it on our dashboard charts ourselves.
One of the things we talked about with the developers, who are very smart guys, brilliant engineers, is to improve the dashboard. The dashboard they have is great, but is doesn’t have the multiple line charts combined into one.
If they could offer that, then we wouldn't need to do that unofficially on the outside. We wrote the software ourselves in Java and did it ourselves. If they had something like that in a dashboard to have all the lines combined, that would help us.
One other thing that is a problem for us is the Certificate of Networthiness requirement that they have in the military, in the Department of Defense networks. It means that your product has to meet certain tests and requirements to be credible, and to make sure it's not spyware or anything like that. It was difficult for me to get Statseeker on this network, because it didn't have such a certificate.
I worked a little bit with the Statseeker team and I was able to write a statement. Basically, I vouched for it on my own volition, as an engineer. The network administrator said that he had something in the book for it, and nobody ever came back and looked at it.
I think Statseeker itself could do a better job in closing deals and they would have a bigger customer base if they could meet such a requirement. This requirement is very easy to meet. They're not doing anything wrong, but you have to illustrate and explain how you're collecting the data off the network.
They want to see how you're collecting traffic and how often. They want to know what kind of stuff you're sending back out; if it's HTTP, then it's their website. That could be very easily achieved by documenting that and applying for such a certificate. That could be available for all customers in the DOD. I think it would open a new market for Statseeker. It would potentially give them many more customers around the country, the United States, and foreign countries, as well, where that is required.
On the core part of the product, I really don't know how you could improve it. It's a very solid solution.
There have not been any stability issues. We follow the installation instructions exactly. We're not using it in a virtualized way. We're using it the way it's supposed to be used. We have not had any trouble, especially not on the small network that we have.
On our small network, there haven’t been any scalability issues. We're using 1,000 interfaces, and we're probably only monitoring 800 of them. On the other network that I was on before, it was much, much larger, and I also didn't observe any stability issues. Statseeker is a very robust solution. I can't say anything negative about it.
I have used technical support. There was a time when all of the calls had to go to Australia. That meant that we had to contact them at 2 p.m. our time. I often used my evening hours at home. I wasn't going to stay at work at 8 or 9 o'clock, depending on when these guys were available for a call. That was a little bit bothersome. But it got done.
If you need technical support on the spot, it would have been difficult. Because the product was so robust, I never really needed support too much. My technical questions were always toward a longer-term solution, not for something that I need to talk to Statseeker right now because I'm in a bind and I need to solve this problem. It's never been like that.
That's because of the product they have. In other words, if you live in the United States, there's a lot of Chevy, Ford and Chrysler dealerships, but there are only a few Honda dealerships and repair shops. There are fewer of those because you don't need them. Those cars don't go bad that much.
In this case, you didn't need a tech support person to be on the phone, ready to go, because the product doesn't show these kinds of issues. I would much rather have something that's robust and I don't have to call anyone, than something that's flaky and hokey and you can't figure it out and you end up having to talk to support to make it work. The approach is fundamentally different than most American-based companies, and I like it for that reason.
I worked on a different program with Lockheed Martin at Fort Knox back in 2011. This was a very large network, one of the largest in the world. It's called Recruiting Services Network (RSN). It has 29,000 users and I was asked to find out which links needed to have an upgrade. People were complaining across the board. I was the architect, and I was tasked to find out why we had so many complaints, who is overriding their bank, and so forth. I looked at a whole bunch of tools that they had there, and one of them was Statseeker.
They had already purchased it. I did a quick comparison between that solution and some other tools that were there. It was clear to me that this was the best tool for us. I got to use Statseeker extensively after that for the following two years.
I was involved in the installation and it was straightforward. It was very easy to do compared with other installations I have performed.
Unfortunately, everybody wants to virtualize these days. At this point, we're not running virtualized, because it shouldn't be done. I'm opposed to virtualization for network stuff. Because of the nature of the network, you're sharing processing power and all of that stuff.
I can see that the trend is going to eventually push Statseeker into a virtualized solution. That's a bad development, but I can just see it's going to be more and more of an issue that will come up. I'm wondering how they are going to deal with it. I hope it stays the way it is.
I think we currently have a small license compared to the one at my last job. This license is only for 1,000 devices/interfaces.
I heard that we're still using 4.0 with some patches applied. Because of the script we have, we didn't want to upgrade because the script might not work on the new version.
I heard licensing went up for the new product. I don't actually know if the licensing fee went up. For our 1,000 interfaces, it was around $1,800 when we bought it. That was more than adequate.
It's a great pricing strategy. If it's twice as much, however, then it's already getting a little expensive. It is a little bit expensive for how we use it.
My advice is to give it a chance. Look past the bells and whistles of competing products. What you're getting with Statseeker is a far superior tool, in terms of precision in having the true data available indefinitely and the ease of use.
Look past what you've seen before and give Statseeker a chance. Once you have done that, you are good to go and you won't want to use any other tool.
They have never put out a product, an update, or anything that didn't work. It always worked right away with these expectations.
My favorite feature is Traffic Analyzer (NetFlow). I use this part of the tool nearly every day to validate what traffic (source and destination) is communicating, how much bandwidth they are consuming and what protocols they are using. It assists in troubleshooting immensely. We use the alerting features to notify of performance issues, device outages, and firewall failover situations. We have used the historical data tool many times to review historical performance. Since it keeps all historical data, we can get pretty much everything we need.
When we have bandwidth spikes or outages, we use this tool to analyze what device or devices are causing the issue. Then, we evaluate the data and the case, and decide how to proceed with configuration changes to prevent the issue from recurring.
We would like to see improvements in reporting and multiple-user integration. Reporting has everything you can think of, but it can be cumbersome to set up and tweak the reports to get the exact data you want. When setting up multiple users with AD authentication, it is a bit tricky and problematic. I wish this had an easier integration.
I have used Statseeker for 14 months.
We have not had any issues with stability. This product has worked right out of the box. Once set up, we have upgraded a few times and never experienced any real issues with the tool.
We have not had any scalability issues. It has been able to successfully handle all the devices and information we have thrown at it.
The technical support guys are great to work with and know what they are doing. There are times when they are slow to respond, but I have always gotten my issue resolved.
We have used multiple solutions. We wanted something that would track everything on our network. The integration with the Traffic Analyzer (NetFlow) data we get from Statseeker really helped and it is awesome that they included this in the price. All other solutions seemed to want to charge extra for that feature. Ease of installation and setup was a bonus.
You install, add SNMP credentials, add devices and BAM. Done. Setting it up was easy, and, once you add a device, the data is there. No silly maps to play with and a simple dashboard were great. It also helped that they offer a full demo of the product. That allowed me to install the product and show management the capabilities. The week after I installed it, we used the tool to help identify an issue that we had been experiencing and it assisted greatly in resolving the issue.
Pricing is competitive. It’s not the cheapest solution, but it includes everything and does everything they claim. Be sure to be conservative on your port count, you will run over your licensing if you don’t. Estimate high so you can track all your ports.
We compared SolarWinds, Icinga, Snort, and MRTG.
Get their full trial, try it out and use it to solve your issues, you will not be disappointed.
Link transmit / receive graphs, errors, up status in one view.
We can quickly see at a glance the overall status of devices on the network. We can see which links are being heavily utilised at a glance and then investigate further if required. We can see what’s down very easily and we can tailor the monitoring screen to suit our needs.
The interface looks like a Windows 3.1 program. It needs a complete refresh. Sometimes it is difficult to see all the information you are after about a list of devices as it seems to only present what will fit on the first page and there is no way to scroll to the next page.
Not that I am really aware of. The product is very stable and just sits there doing its thing (which is exactly what we want it doing).
We haven’t experienced any scalability issues, but that may be because we’re a relatively small organisation (less than 150 devices being monitored).
Quite good and helpful in the past. Training and briefing sessions are provided.
It was our first monitoring tool and we have kept it, but we also have an additional tool to complement Statseeker.
Straightforward. Doesn’t take long to setup and get operational.
We evaluated SolarWinds and ManageEngine.
Ensure you are clear on what you need the tool to do and get a proof of concept on your network to prove it. Make sure that the tool can be tailored to provide you with what you need, not just what comes out of the box.
The features that we use are as follows:
We have used this product since the organization was established and it has been a integral part of our business as usual functions and I would suggest that if we stopped using it then this would have a negative impact on our operations.
Keep it simple, the product works so I would not over complicate it. The only thing I would add is to keep improving the Netflow analysis interface this is something that we find very useful.
We have used this application for nearly 13 years in a major network of around 700 WAN sites.
No, we find the product extremely stable, noting that as a health provider we don’t use the latest version or beta versions.
Not so far, we have around 2500 mainly Cisco devices in our current version and have not had any issues so far.
Statseeeker have been very good communicators and are always willing to assist. The truth is we set it up and it runs so we really don’t use any support but are thankful for the small number of times we have called on Statseeker support.
We also use a number other network tools such as CA eHealth, Cisco Prime, Splunk, etc. concurrently, some of these tools have real strengths but so does Statseeker as outlined above. From our experience, large networks requires more than one tool and a mix will give better results to the business.
The setup is pretty straightforward, the tool does an SNMP get from the MIBs and loads it up which is a very simple process.
As stated above, we concurrently use a number of tools and have looked at others but most have issues with licensing, scalability, complexity of setting it up, etc. We have found the Statseeker product to be very easy to set up, it runs and is easy to use so are very happy with it.
Make sure that your naming convention is kept the same to make it easier to search use all lower case as capitol letter are treated differently to lower case.
I would rate the product as 8 out of 10, it is a robust application that we use on a daily basis mainly for incident management.