We were trying to use VMware's version of it, but it's a pile of junk. It doesn't work. It just sees that something is busy and moves it somewhere where it's slower. Turbonomic is better because it trends and it looks at history. If it knows that something is only going to run hot for 30 seconds, but it's going to take 45 seconds to move everything around, then it's not worth moving. You don't get that out of VMware's product. It just saw, "Okay, so it's hot, start moving." But the problem is that when you start doing the move, you're also now utilizing even more resources, and you could save on those when the move is going to take longer than the actual task that's causing the spike. Turbonomic sees that and it doesn't necessarily move stuff just for the sake of moving it. It knows that this is something that happens every day at this time and we're just going to ride it out.

We were actually one of their first customers, when they were still ironing out all the wrinkles of their algorithm. My boss and I were both looking at it and seeing how it was shuffling stuff around non-stop. It couldn't even gather data at a point. It was already moving it somewhere else. We called in, took some notes, and they produced a new version. We did what felt like beta-testing even though it had been a production piece for a while. But they were very responsive and produced patches really quickly. The company was a really good company. They were really friendly, and they're always trying to deliver what they promise.

In addition to Turbonomic, we have a tool called Apptio Cloudability that gives you a report on what you spent that month. I have to go back and identify what is going on. Turbonomic identifies the issue, records it, and fixes it with no manual intervention. We also used the native cloud solutions provided by Amazon or Google, but they weren't as effective as Turbonomics. 

We use Turbonomic for infrastructure awareness, but we have other tools for application awareness like ControlUp. VMware has distributed resource scheduling, but we believe that Turbonomic is far superior to that.

Before I came to this company, my previous company was using this tool extensively. At my previous job, I had seen the benefits of the tool. When I came over to this company, it was one of the first things that I started to champion.

I have been with the company for three years, and we have used a tool called VMware DRS. We are a heavy VMware shop, and vROps wasn't anywhere near the level of automation needed. DRS, even though it can do some things automatically, it is all based on data pulled from the night before. We didn't have anything in the environment that could do the real-time automated resource moves, like Turbonomic does.

I think DRS is gone now. The engineering team still uses VMware for a couple of things, simply because that is their preference. vROps is still in the environment, but I would love to get to the point where we can continue showing success with Turbonomic and eventually eliminate vROps.

Before Turbonomic, I used a solution called VMware ONE Service. I started to use Turbonomic when I switched roles. I don't know why the company adopted Turbonomic, but it was in use when I joined. 

I was just using cloud-native tools. Turbonomic saves time on the cumbersome tasks that we have to do with the native tools. Its recommendations are good.

Turbonomic is real-time. When you are using cloud-native tools, you are chasing the wheel, and by the time you are done with the analysis, the data is too old. Turbonomic's algorithm provides real-time analysis and recommendations, which are pretty useful.

In terms of application awareness, Turbonomic did not provide a lot of value. We could group it, but cloud-native tools provided the tagging capability. We did not do a lot with Turbonomic in terms of application visibility.

We were using VMware beforehand. We switched due to the fact that somebody in the environment had used Turbonomic at a previous engagement or a previous location. We decided just to give it a try and it worked amazingly well.

We started using Turbonomic as a replacement for VMware DRS, which handled the VM placement.

We knew we were having some performance issues and ready queue problems that we felt could be improved. We worked with VMware for a while to tweak settings without a lot of success. So, we saw what Turbonomic said that they could do. We tried it, and it could do those things, so we bought it.

From a compute standpoint, Turbonomic provides us with a single platform that manages the full application stack. When we originally started, we were primarily looking for something that would make better use of our existing infrastructure. Because it does a much better job of putting VMs together on hosts, we were able to save money immediately just by implementing it. At the time, we were non-cloud. There was a period of time where we just couldn't put anything into the cloud for security reasons. We have moved past that now and are moving to the cloud. This solution has a lot more use cases for that, e.g., sizing workloads for the cloud and monitoring workloads in the cloud.

I'm an open-source guy, so I used a lot of open-source code to do the cost optimization through scripting. One reason Turbonomic was our first choice was that our on-prem team was already using it.

We use other tools as part of our operations, including AppDynamics to help with Application Performance Management.

That said, we have not used any other products that have the same capabilities as Turbonomic.

We were using a combination of vROps and VMware. We were also using BMC TrueSight, which we still use today. There are a couple of others out there, because the network team uses a few things. There is all sorts of stuff that I think they were kind of hog-tying together to make them work.

Some of these solutions are ingrained in our processes and have been around literally forever. So, there isn't the staff or the resources right now to rewrite a lot of these things. Currently, we do kind of a side-by-side comparison, and I believe some folks have written some ways to integrate the new data from Turbonomic into the old way of doing things. That's just a culture change at the company. It's just a big place that has been around for a long time, which works slowly.

This solution was brought to us by one of our AVPs. She had worked at HPE, and we didn't know about it. She said, "Let's look at this," because apparently she used it at HPE. We looked at it, and said, "Ah, this is great." Then, we went with it.

Turbonomic is more customizable with a lot more features. 

Even though you can turn on automation in VMware, it's not very good. It's kludgy and has a tendency to break things, where the autobalance of workload management that Turbonomic does within VMware is much better than the VMware tools which are designed for this. That may change, because VMware seems to be doing great with this. However, for right now, Turbonomic is the only way to go. 

TrueSight is just straight up what you see is what you get.

We did not use a similar solution prior to this one. All of the work was done manually. We knew that our workload was increasing and the time spent on managing these types of workloads throughout our server stack was also increased. We implemented Turbonomic because we found it was a good way to free them up from a lot of that busy work.

Compared to what we were doing before, Turbonomic has given us full visibility. Prior to this, we had to look in multiple locations, and in some cases, we didn't have any visibility at all. 

We would go quarter-to-quarter and say, "Okay, go optimize our application environments." We could use Azure Monitor or a couple of other tools that aren't nearly as robust, and without knowing the impact, other than what Azure Monitor gives you. But Azure Monitor, which doesn't do memory metrics, would tell you, "You can reduce size by doing this," but maybe memory was the problem. Turbonomic is much more robust. Before using it, we were doing things in a very manual way. 

The way I got Turbonomic through the door was by saying, "You want to have your entire staff clean up the cloud every quarter?"

We didn't have a solution in place at all.

We did not use another product. We are not replacing anything. We were familiar with the Turbonomic product in the context of our VMware environment. We thought it was the ideal product. Because of the way it calculates things, we also thought it was the right approach going forward. So, we went directly to choosing Turbonomic.

We were using vCenter Operations manager. I made the switch because vCops gave a lot of good info, but that was all it did. VMTurbo allows me to automate the recommendations if I choose, but it also gives me visibility into the UCS infrastructure we have VMware running on. This allows me to drill in further than what I could do with vCops at a much lower price.

We have used different ones provided by VMware. The solution is specific to the client. Turbonomic is one of the solutions we provide. It is extremely good and very easy to use. 

We did not have a previous solution.

We previously used Reflex/StrataCloud. We moved for the ease of use and the workload placement functionality.

Had been using vROps but product was too expensive and didn't offer the flexibility that this product does.

We used monitoring tools like Solarwinds Orion and vFoglight. They're fine products but they don't really compete with VMTurbo in that they are not actually performing command and control operations. VMTurbo actually does things way beyond DRS and Storage DRS. Our monitoring solutions just overwhelmed us with data and there's a big difference between knowing a problem exists and proactively preventing or fixing one without human involvement.

No.

We used vMan from SolarWinds. We wanted a product that enabled more automation of tasks and intelligent load balancing.

Native VMware tools.

We did use Virtualization Manager before and it didn't seem near as robust as Turbonomic and it was more expensive so we switched.

We did not use a similar solution prior to this one.

We previously had vCOPS, but that was charged per VM and could not monitor and report on our XenServer environment.

We were using both Veeam and VMTurbo at one point, but it was management's decision to go with VMTurbo.

No, we did not use anything beforehand.

vCOPS

We used vRA from VMware. 

We did not use a solution before this.

We evaluated SolarWinds Virtualization Manager. It was chaotic and took too much effort to truly see what was going on within the environment.

None.

Previously, we used something out-of-the-box or homegrown, in-house scripts.

We really didn't have another product. We were licensed for vRealize, but we never actually spun it up, and then we saw Turbonomic. Our big reason for going for it was a lot of reporting functionality and the resource metrics that I can pull back to be able to bill customers. vRealize and Orchestrator are okay, but they don't have a lot of billing functionality in them to create reports and send automatically to end users or to do things of that nature. The management feature was nice, but the biggest reason for purchasing it was its ability to run reports and run billing outside of our VMware environment.

SolarWinds Virtualization Manager was our previous product. This solution was slow, overly complex and its impact limited in terms of what it was capable of doing.

We have some specific instances come up where vCOPS was making recommendations on something like a SQL server. It said, "Hey, you only need 12 megabytes of RAM or 100 megabytes of RAM for the SQL server." Even old OS's just can't run with that low amount of memory. VMTurbo when we looked at it, we understood that it was going to make better recommendations. So far, that's been the case. We've been able to fully automate the distribution of our VMs among our hosts, where vCOPS and DRS really weren't doing the right job for us. They were creating imbalanced hosts. Some hosts would get overloaded, and we've ran into big problems.

Manually monitoring and manipulating resources, and grabbing reports from multiple sources. Switching made it easy to do all of the above.

We used built in tools to try and balance workloads - it wasn't as good.

No.

We used to manually try and work out where we had spare resource using tools like vCenter and NetApp System Manager, we had to move to something more intelligent as it was clear that we had untapped resource available, but we couldn't identify with 100% certainty where it was.

We used a combination of solutions beforehand. In terms of VMTurbo I liked what I saw - scalability, the automation, etc. While we haven’t taken full advantage of every aspect VMTurbo has to offer, those modules and workflow we’re presently using have made an impact in our support to our clients.

We were using an in-house toolset. There were primarily two reasons for the change:

1. Remove the need for special in-house knowledge and development.
2. Use a product that is recognized in the industry to increase transparency and confidence in our capacity calculations.

First and only solution my company has used.

Just vCenter Server combined with years of experience with VMware to make resource determinations.

Yes. The previous solution was used to monitor both physical and virtual environments in one solution. As we became highly virtualized the real-time monitoring and decision-making became important and Turbonomic had an edge over the previous vendor.

Dell Foglight.

I used to monitor my vm performance from the VMware thick client but there were too many places to look to find what I needed to identify an issue. I deployed a few products to test out and settled with Turbonomics since their interface had the most information available on one page for what I was looking for as well as the ability to create customized reports for daily monitoring.

No.

No, we did not use any previous solution.

We did not have a previous solution.

No.

Only native VMware solutions.

No other solution deployed previously.

We didn't have a previous solution in place.

No. We looked at several and no one is in their league!

None.

Many free solutions over the years.  Needed something actively developed and reliable.

I did not previously use a different solution.

We did not.

vCOPS, at the time vCOPS did not have auto load balance.

We used a VMware native tool before and it is impossible to get any capacity and efficiency data from it. We had to hire a consultant to give us some data. But were able to replace all that once Turbonomic was installed.

At a previous place of employment we used vFoglight which was just a terrible product. Turbonomic doesn't even compare because it doesn't monitor your environment and send alerts. It prevents alerts from ever happening.

No.

There was no prior solution.

I previously looked at vCenter Operations Manager (previous name of vRealize Ops Manager) and it was not nearly as feature rich at Turbonomic at the time.

Yes, Azure Advisor. It did not do a good job as regards memory utilization but concentrated more on processor consumption.

No.

SolarWinds Virtualisation Manager, more of a reporting engine, and lacking any preventive optimization functionality.

We moved to Turbonomic for its performance automation. The included reporting and alerting ability is a nice to have, but more or less obsolete.

First solution.

No, this was our first monitoring/management tool for the virtualized environment.

I have used vRealize Operations Manager a lot for VMware solution monitoring. I changed to Turbonomic because it is a vendor-agnostic platform that can be used for monitoring, but really is an automation and control platform for optimizing your entire environment.

At my current company we only had the free stuff from VMware, but other products were used at previous companies like vCOPS. Pricing and user friendlies. Not feeling like a small fish in a big pond. And the product did exactly what I wanted.

The previous "solution" was mostly just guess-work in evaluating vCenter metrics.

Nothing else in the market can compare.

No, we did not. Previously, on vSphere, we just used what we could get out of vCenter.

Not at this level. We evaluated other solutions and chose Turbonomic.

DRS - Built-in tool didn't provide adequate migrations and no reporting about overall health.

None.

No.

No previous solution.

No we did not. Found Turbonomic at a conference and was impressed with their solution and ran with it.

No.

No previous solution.

No.

We have tried other solution, VCOPS as well as Virtual Instruments. VMTurbo was unique – other products were not as complete a match.

We did not have a previous solution that monitored everything. It was all done manually via the vCenter Server. When we purchased Turbonomic (VMturbo at the time), vRealize Operations was just getting going and it was outrageous. Turbonomic offered everything we thought we needed, and even things we didn't know we needed, at a great price.

No.

We were using SolarWinds Virtualization Manager. We switched because the features and ease of use were more accurate and responsive.

I did use something else and I was able to get the information I was looking for. If the data I'm looking for is 15 windows away, there's no way I'm using it.

No. We just guessed and tried to use PerfMon and VMware performance and user feelings to size and place the workload. Bad.

None.

I used vFoglight previously, but this was mainly a reporting tool. Turbonomic manages your infrastructure for you and assists with future planning/provisioning.

WhatsUp Gold, though it is not really the same thing.

Cost and recurring license costs did not make sense with other solutions when I POC'd solutions in the real-world. Everything else required more people, expertise, or money for less function.

Other solutions were evaluated during this time, but nothing was being used.

No.

We used another tool to give us insights into our VM environment but due to the way it gathered data it was always at least 24 hours out of date. Turbonomic gave us the ability to look at near real-time data coming directly from out VMware environment.

I used vROPS, vFoglight but not in BCBSRI.

I evaluated a slew of solutions and Turbonomic (then VMTurbo) was heads and tails above the competition.

vCOPs, for only 30 days. We thought Turbonomic was much easier to get to important, useful data.

We used vCOPS. Turbonomic is a more user friendly and informative product.

No

We previously used a combination of Veeam ONE and WhatsUp Gold to monitor our virtual environment. We switched due to Turbonomic's automation ability. Its ability to monitor and manage practically all virtualization technologies (Hyper-V, VMware, Citrix XenServer, and with the release of version 5.9, most public cloud platforms as well), and the ability to see everything from a single pane of glass.

We had used the built in VMware products, they did not do as good of a job of balancing as Turbonomoic.

We use other Monitoring Tools but not with these automation features.

We used Microsoft's Operations Manager in tandem with this application. VMTurbo has a lower learning curve on use and setup.

No.

No tool before.

No.

No.

Nagios.

No

N/a

No, unless you count VMware's built in DRS functionality.

We did not use a previous solution.

We first used VeemOne but the added value because of the automation feature pulled us in.

This is our first performance capacitor tool.

No.

No.

No. We researched several solutions and in the end chose VMTurbo, now Turbonomic.

No, we had just relied on the the build in vCenter server tools.

Yes, there were a few different solutions in place before Turbonomic. After implementation of Turbonomic the switch was easy as it had every metric and report I needed from a director's standpoint and didn't need to jump systems to make it work.

vRealize, Nagios, SCVMM.

VCOPS by vmware. Switched because Vmturbo was able to give us the reporting, planning, and migrations more easily and at a huge savings.

SCOM and vRealize.

We evaluated several different products and decided on Turbonomic for the ease of use and the amount of data we have been able to get out of the software.

Other than manually monitoring and manipulating resources, DRS (which really doesn't even compare) is the closest "solution" we previously used.

Reasons for switching? Real automation, forecasting, and reporting.

No

No.

Previously we used vCOPS.

We evaluated vCOPS but decided we received way more functionality and automation with VMTurbo.

No.

Based on our hunt for finding a smart tool. This was the first one.

Have used vROps for a little while. Much more complex and didn't give us the same value.

Previously we did not use any real virtual infrastructure insight tools aside from SolarWinds. VMTurbo is a different animal however because it provides automation and a proactive approach to monitoring.

No.

We have run earlier version of vROPS, and Foglight.

None.

We were looking at vCops originally and the prices would not even compare with nearly 0 compromise.

VMware's DRS didn't seem to balance our clusters very evenly. vROps made sizing recommendations that were just not correct. We tested Turbo and the recommendations were all on point and we are able to trust them.

No previous solution. At the time no other vendors offered a similar product, other than Veeam.

VMware vCenter Operations - prior to the VRealize operations incarnation.VCOps provided additional metric data and heat maps to gain additional insight into our VMware installation, but we were still left to decide what this data meant and how to improve our performance. Turbonomic makes plain English suggestions on how to optimize our install base.

Veeam MP for VMware with SCOM 2012 R2.

We are still using this solution as our major monitoring system.

Previously, we were using vRealize Operations IT Manager (vROps) but it wasn't as granular as Turbonomic.

The built-in VMWare tools.

Never use any previous solutions.

Veeam MP for VMware, with SCOM 2012 R2.

Now we are still using this solution as our major monitoring system.

No

No.

No

vCOPs/vROPs. We switched because of the "engineer friendly" interface of that solution. Turbonomic's solution is much more approachable and hands off.

No we did not.

No.

Yes, used vKernel. Product was not being updated after multiple acquisitions.

No.