As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server.

What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor.

The AI aspect needs to improve. Most of the clients go to see the competition and hear about their AI offering and this solution lacks that.  

There is room for improvement with the administrative part. They introduced Control Center to manage things in Zenoss 5. The services that Zenoss provides remained the same, but the administrative part, since they introduced Docker, etc., has become a little complex. I know it's interesting to get new features, but it didn't add value to the customer. It made the administration task a little more complex but I have gotten used to it over the last year.

Also, application performance monitoring is an area that Zenoss has not touched much. I would like to see them focus more on this area. There is a need for application monitoring and mobile Android monitoring. If they can develop those kinds of areas that would make our business more up to date and we could cover more customers.

Zenoss Service Dynamics is good at the moment. I don't see anything that needs to be improved. In terms of monitoring, they need some sort of customization options. It should be more intuitive. 

Zenoss Service Dynamics is quite complex, i.e. the number of required corrections, etc.

There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring. Either this was because of some specifics of the storage hardware or some specifics of the Zenoss software. Zenoss has virtually excluded storage integration from their support.

Zenoss has built in a number of add-ons, some of them unique to their needs and some that can be customized for a particular product. Zenoss sometimes can be too complex.

Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values.

I would like to see greater importance placed on the open-source version of this solution.

This solution is complex for beginners so it takes some time to learn.

The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement.

If Zenoss tries to change Twill from what it is now to another kind of solution, such as Selenium or something similar, it would be nice.

It would be nice if the ZenPack could work but with fewer features. That said it's a problem not from Zenoss. It's a problem from the ZenPack itself.

There's a bit of a learning curve when you first use the solution.

The product needs to be a bit better in terms of auditing features.

It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts. If you have, for example, 10 monitors with a lot of batch alerts and you have it working with your computer, sometimes you will see the dashboard. However, if you could listen instead, and be alerted by the noise, you can raise your head easily look at your monitor, to see the problem. That's why I put in sound within my operating system. That is the only feature that I could never find in Zenoss.

• Simplified installation
• Improved consistency of monitoring templates