CA eHealth [EOL] was previously known as CA eHealth Performance Manager.
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Specialist at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I use this stable reporting solution for its valuable, easy-to-use canned reports. I dislike the bad customer service, high cost, and poor index shifting, which needs improvement. Overall, I rate it an eight. |
| Network Manager at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees | 3.0 | I use this stable tool for centralized network infrastructure monitoring, with good customer service. I'm upgrading for new features, but I'd like an overall view of applications and infrastructure to consolidate tools and reduce complexity. |
| Manager of Network Monitoring and Remote Access at Jacobs | 4.0 | I appreciate its rock-solid stability and extensive data for long-term trend reporting, deploying easily. However, its reporting capabilities are limited and simplistic, requiring another product for custom reports, and AD authentication is complicated. |
| Senior Network Support Analyst with 1,001-5,000 employees | 4.0 | I find this solution excellent for capacity planning and proactive network monitoring. However, I am frustrated by its slow performance, outdated Java GUI, and challenging alert configuration, despite good customer support. |
| Senior Manager of Network at a tech company with 1,001-5,000 employees | 4.0 | No summary available |
We are currently using this solution for reporting. The talking reports are fantastic and the users love it.
The most valuable feature of this solution is the fact that it sends me canned reports. It's easy to use and easy to update.
The only thing I don't like about this solution is the old index shift; it doesn't work very well. So I would like to see improved index shifting. I would also like to see a price reduction.
It is a very stable program.
We don't use remote polers, primarily because of the cost and even now, it's exceptionally expensive. So we don't scale. We are only two people on the staff and we are responsible for maintenance too.
The technical support is bad, primarily because I don't see anybody using it. I once had to rebuild the whole database when it died. I had to put in a new database and upgrade my system and do everything. Then it broke my database and they could not fix it. Now we work around it and it works fine.
We used LiveHealth but then we stopped using that because the organization wasn't getting good performance out of it.
The initial setup was straightforward and we did everything ourselves. It was a long time ago, but if I remember correctly the deployment took about a week for all our sites and reports running smoothly.
It is an expensive program. Every time you buy more licenses, it will cost you to get CA support and you will pay even more if you want your remote part of the actual service.
My advice to others would be that, if they'd manage to sort out the indexing problem, it's a wonderful product to use. The biggest lesson I've learned is the deviation of the time. On a scale of one to ten, my rating would be an eight.
We have a centralized command center that monitors everything and this is the main tool that we are using. We monitor the entire network infrastructure, including our various data centers. From the data centers to the remote locations, we have the WAN links monitored.
Right now, I'm looking to replace eHealth with the latest CA solution, which is the Performance Manager. I understand there are many new features. We are running an old version, but functionality-wise, the tool itself is a great tool. We get threshold alerts, as well as alerts for link or device failures. It's our priority-monitoring tool.
I would mainly like to see an overall view of the application and the infrastructure. Right now, we are limited to the network piece of it. I would like to see a consolidation so that the command center doesn’t need to look at multiple tools, like HPE OneView. If I can get that, that will be really great.
Stability is very good. We had very few minor issues in the past years related to memory leakage and stuff like that but we hardly had to contact the help desk.
The scalability mainly depends on the underlying infrastructure, which we needed to expand.
The few times we contacted technical support they were very good.
We know that it's a good product and we've been used to it for many years in our company, so when it was time to upgrade, we looked around and we saw that this is good for us.
I was not involved in the initial setup. The system was inherited. I did hear it was a little complex to understand the setup, but after that it was easy to operate.
We compared it with other solutions.
We wanted migration to be easy, so instead of bringing in a new tool and doing a lot of work on that, we went with the existing solution of CA. We also have some financial flexibility with CA, so it's easy to migrate from CA to CA rather than from CA to any other tool.
I think an overall architectural understating is required. Also, you don't want to play around with multiple technologies and multiple vendors. I suggest going with one vendor who can cover the whole technology landscape.
I'm particularly impressed with the stability, which is like a rock, and the fact that it has so much data on such a stable platform.
We have 40-50 users all linked with Performance Center, and to login to Performance Center and eHealth, everybody goes through Spectrum. It requires a lot of right-clicks to bring up reports, but it automatically takes you to wherever you need to go.
It has limited reporting with only a few canned out-of-the-box reports. So it'd be nice if it had more robust reporting capabilities.
I also think some of the reports are fairly simplistic, and it would nice to be able to get more details. It's already got executive-levels reports, but I'd like a different way of presenting the data with different types of graphs. You're pretty limited on what you can see with the existing graphs.
There's just so much data that's being brought in, and you're limited on the number of reports. Then if you wanted to design your own reports, you have to buy another product.
I'd also like to be able to hook it up to AD authentication more easily. It's pretty complicated to do that right now.
We're using eHealth for long-term trend reporting.
We had no issues deploying it.
It's been stable. Like a rock.
You should start slow and have a definite scope of work that you need to get accomplished. Pick one thing that you need to get done and implement it. Start with that, and then you can expand from there instead of trying to drink from the fire hose and get all that information brought in at the same. You need to try to limit your scope.
CA eHealth Overview.
EHealth is a NMS tool used to monitor the reachability and Bandwidth availability, exceed threshold Bandwidth for a Network devices etc... It provides Real time analysis report well as predictive performance analysis. It can work in multi-vendor environment. At-a-Glance report provides on network utilization (incoming and outgoing traffic), CPU utilizations, memory usage, jitter etc. eHealth Provides proactive network performance management alerts. We can get hourly, daily weakly charts also we can get a chart for particular period. eHealth At-a-glance report provides Comprehensive report of key variables. i.e. bidirectional report of total packet, packet drop, errors, latency, network availability, memory utilization etc.
Pros:
1) Supports Multivendor devices, supports a large number of devices, it has certified thousands of software and hardware device.
2) supports many vendor MIB and RFC specific MIBs
3) At-a-glance report provides Comprehensive report of key variables.
4) provides Real time analysis report well as predictive performance analysis
5) Highly scalable solution.
6) Can send email and Text message alerts.
7) Escalation system escalate the alerts to higher authorities if alerts not attended.
Cons :
1) initial Cost is high, and high licensing fees.
2) Is complex system need to maintain dedicated team to manage this
3) More resource Oriented: It needs some faster server. Many request can load the server and can suffer performance issue.
4) Requires high disk space: monitoring large amount of devices will require high disk space for maintaining old data.
5) There is limitations in the number of characters an element the name need to be short.
6) Does not store Syslog’s separate syslog device needs to be maintained.
7) New Device certification process is long.
![CA eHealth [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_100/PNT6PqoKPXw9AHMYdimfVbN9.jpg?_a=BACAGSGT)
![NetMaster Network Intelligence vs CA eHealth [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_30/PNT6PqoKPXw9AHMYdimfVbN9.jpg?_a=BACAGSGT){kind=small}