DX Unified Infrastructure Management Reviews

We are an integrating company that offers DX Unified Infrastructure Management to customers. We help them set it up, do the integration, and provide support. Our end customers include financial institutions, banks, and government entities. We use it for complete infrastructure monitoring and integration with other solutions as needed by our clients.

We have achieved a lot with DX Unified Infrastructure Management, primarily in terms of monitoring complete infrastructure. 

It helps us provide visibility into network performance, capacity planning, and cost analysis, enabling proactive measures before end users start to complain. 

It is especially useful for us in the banking industry to assess and improve application response times and user experience.

DX Unified Infrastructure Management offers visibility into network activities, integration capacity, and enhances monitoring at the core and application levels. 

It aids our banking clients in understanding application utilization, supporting proactive measures to mitigate issues before they affect end-user experience, providing comprehensive infrastructure monitoring, and assisting in capacity planning. 

The solution is flexible, user-friendly, and offers essential functionality for transaction monitoring.

Better support and more accessible resources are crucial. Customers have expressed that support is not as flexible, and it is difficult to obtain necessary information quickly. Customers would benefit from improved training material for integration with other products. The solution's pricing is high and needs to be reconsidered, and the technical support should improve to provide more accessible and open information.

I have been working with DX Unified Infrastructure Management for over six to seven years.

The solution helps with capacity management, enabling us to determine when we need to scale up the network. This functionality assists in identifying resource needs and scaling appropriately.

While I would rate my experience with customer service and support between eight to nine, based on my insight and experience, customers often find it challenging to engage support without the necessary insights. Improving direct support for end customers, similar to Microsoft’s model, would be beneficial.

Positive

Some customers have asked for integration with solutions like ServiceNow or ManageEngine.

We integrate DX Unified Infrastructure Management for our end customers, offering them support and assistance in setup and ongoing management. We handle deployment and integration tasks as required by our clients.

The pricing of DX Unified Infrastructure Management is high and often a concern for customers. The cost is higher compared to other Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), which is feedback we have received from various customers.

I would recommend DX Unified Infrastructure Management to others as it is a good and reliable solution. I would rate it nine out of ten due to its robust functionality and capability to support infrastructure monitoring efficiently.

The major use case is for managing the hybrid data center and all its components, such as patient infrastructure and the physical and virtual infrastructure of the model data center.

The best features are scalability, versatility, infrastructure coverage and ease of implementation.

There should be wider coverage of storage infrastructure. In addition, the product used to have a mobile interface, but it is not supported anymore. It would be good to add it back.

We have been using this solution for about 20 years and provide our customers with the latest version. It is deployed on-premises.

It is very scalable, and I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support is good, and I rate them an eight out of ten because they could be a bit better.

Positive

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. The number of people needed for deployment depends on the customer, but we usually need at least one person and two to three at other times. The initial implementation takes about two months. The full implementation can be infinite because you may want to implement more.

The product does not require a lot of maintenance. To increase the implementation, we push additional services in the first and second years to make it more robust and fully implemented. We usually sell to big enterprises. It can also be affordable for smaller enterprises, but we don't work with them a lot.

We have from 2,000 to 10,000 workers. So the product itself can have five, ten or even 20 users.

I rate the ROI a ten out of ten.

I rate the licensing cost a ten out of ten. It is affordable.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This is a CI tool. We use it for board processing, monitoring, and budgeting.

It's very useful. The solution is quite easy to handle. Even beginners can use it quite easily. Even though there are some manual processes, it's still very easy to do.

It has a good learning curve for someone even if he doesn't have experience with server monitoring tools. It could help them to learn and understand how to use a server monitoring tool.

If you want to monitor the server you just open the board and it will come under the infrastructure manager. We have deployed the probes like the CBS memory probe and it will monitor that memory or whatever the customer needs.

The setup itself is very easy.

It has been stable and reliable.

The solution can scale. 

Technical support is great.

There are some automation capabilities. 

There are quite a few manual processes.

We've had issues with pulling reports. Sometimes we have trouble or get errors. The reporting process should be easier. 

If you have a hub, you should be able to have an unlimited number of servers. For example, if you have 500 servers, and the limit is ten, you have to pull 50 reports. We'd like to just pull one report for all servers. This also increases the time to pull reports. If we have to pull more reports, it takes that much longer than just pulling one. 

The product can be expensive. 

Right now, they are updating and consolidating the dashboard. I'm expecting an update that will resolve a few glitches in the server.

I've used the solution for the last four and a half years. 

The solution has been stable and reliable. There are no bugs. However, sometimes, if we have to open the probing, the operation fails. There's some error. That said, in the next release, they will fix the bugs.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

We are a team of 20 people, and we are using it with 300 customers with 10,000 plus users. We use it daily.

I'm very satisfied with the technical support. They are knowledgeable and very quick to update. Whenever we create a task, they help us immediately. It's great to have a team that has so much technical skill. 

Positive

I've also used Elantra, which is more automated than DX.

We find the initial setup to be straightforward and simple. I did a primary server, a baby server, and one quick dashboard and it's very easy to build and integrate.

I'd rate the entire process a five out of five in terms of ease of setup.

My understanding is the solution is expensive. I'm not 100% sure of the exact pricing. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. It is expensive, however. New users need to consider their budget before going ahead.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

What I like about DX Unified Infrastructure Management is that it's a very good product. The feature I found most valuable in the solution is the MCS feature, which is the automatic deployment of the objects you want to monitor. You can set up a system, for example, if it's a Windows machine and I want to test specific devices on it, I could do that through DX Unified Infrastructure Management. That type of deployment is very good because it means you won't miss any monitoring aspect on any server.

I'm very happy with DX Unified Infrastructure Management, but what could be improved is its user interface because currently, it has many wide spaces. All the information you need is in DX Unified Infrastructure Management, and it's a reliable tool, and though that's more important than the gaps in the user interface being smaller or wider, those gaps still need some improvement. I know the team is working on it. My company had some backend problems with DX Unified Infrastructure Management in the past that have now been solved.

The setup for the tool also needs improvement because it's complex.

Another room for improvement in DX Unified Infrastructure Management is its technical support because it's sometimes not as knowledgeable or responsive.

What I'm suggesting to be added to the tool is an open-standard ELK Elastic-based database where you can put in all data, so that you can use the data in other systems as well.

I've been working with DX Unified Infrastructure Management for a total of six or seven years now.

DX Unified Infrastructure Management is a very stable tool.

My team finds DX Unified Infrastructure Management scalable. It's good enough in terms of scalability.

The technical support for DX Unified Infrastructure Management could be better because the quality of support fluctuates.

On a scale of one to five, I'm rating support a three.

Sometimes, half of the year, support is perfect, and then for some reason, in the other half of the year, support becomes less responsive and less knowledgeable.

My company asked for improvement from the support team and mentioned the areas my team is unhappy with, and now I see support for DX Unified Infrastructure Management improving again.

I found the initial setup for DX Unified Infrastructure Management complex, but the environment in my company is rather complex. It's a complex setup for every tool, and I doubt other tools would be able to match the requirements of my company.

Pricing for DX Unified Infrastructure Management isn't cheap at all. It's a complex tool, so you have to pay more. No one is happy with a large bill to pay, but if it's a complex product and you designed a complex solution to be monitored, it'll be your fault that you need to buy an expensive product, and that would be implicit in the design of DX Unified Infrastructure Management. Monitoring is just a small part of it. Sometimes you have to pay a significant amount of money for a complex yet very good solution.

We'll be comparing DX Unified Infrastructure Management against another product, so we still don't know the outcome. Scalability and advanced features are the main reasons people choose DX Unified Infrastructure Management over other tools.

I'm using the latest version of DX Unified Infrastructure Management.

Within the company of nine thousand people, about four hundred people use DX Unified Infrastructure Management, and department-wise, there's a total of sixty user accounts.

My rating for DX Unified Infrastructure Management, in general, is eight out of ten. If the price could be lower and functionality could be higher, I'd give it a ten.

We use the product to monitor databases, infrastructure from data centers, servers, and applications like Tomcat and SAP software to monitor the cloud (Azure and AWS).

The thing I most like about the product is its simplicity. We can deploy the agents that we call robots. They are very easy to deploy and very easy to configure.

I recall the initial setup being straightforward. 

Some probes or agents are not multi-tenant. We have been asking Broadcom to improve them to be multi-tenant. That said, it is just some agents, not all. For example, most of the agents are multi-tenant. However, for example, the agents for cloud services such as AWS, Azure, and Google are not multi-tenant. This is difficult for us since we are a service provider.

The display layer, the portal for the customers, is not very easy to work with. We are also trying to ask them to change the way that the customers can see the information in the portal. The dashboards need to be improved. 

For example, we collect a lot of QoS data. However, out of the box, that data is not displayed in the portal. We need to manually create one dashboard for each QoS. It's not very helpful since we have a lot of customers - which means thousands and thousands of servers and applications. We need to do a lot of things manually. That is not very good.

I've used the solution for more than ten years. 

This came from Nimsoft, and Broadcom eventually acquired it after it was acquired by CA.

The solution is very, very stable and easily configurable. We don't have too many issues with the UIM. It's a very good tool.

I'd rate the stability five out of five.

The scalability is very good. We have a lot of servers we call hubs, and we can scale the infrastructure without limits.

I'd rate the scalability at a five out of five.

We have around 1,000 users on the tool.

We have a lot of managed-service customers on the solution. 

We did the initial implementation more than ten years ago. I don't remember the exact process. That said, it's quite simple, the installation. The installation is very, very easy. Even the upgrades are simple.

I'd rate the ease of implementation five out of five. 

We implemented it initially with two or three servers. We started using it to monitor our internal servers, and then we started growing. Now we are monitoring servers and the cloud, and applications from our customers. That said, initially, the product started with our internal servers.

We had three people handle the implementation at the time. We also had support at that early stage from Nimsoft. Someone was with us from the company for about three days, and then we had one more with us for five days.

We have two full-time and one half-time person dealing with maintenance tasks for the product. We have a pretty sizeable infrastructure.

We handled the process ourselves. We didn't need outside assistance aside from some help from the company itself. Their staff came to our site to assist.

I have not looked into the ROI. It's not in my scope of work.

For us, while the base price is the same, we are moving device types and are in the process of negotiating costs with Broadcom. 

They have a price for MSPs and also for services. We are trying to reduce the cost. However, with UIM, we are not using unlimited as we're trying to negotiate with NetOps. We have a baseline for a three-year contract.

Generally, it is an affordable option. I'd rate the product four out of five in terms of cost.

We are using the latest version of the solution. We recently updated it. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten since the dashboards aren't that good. Otherwise, it is an amazing tool.

I very much prefer DX UIM to DX Performance Management.

We're a managed service provider so we monitor customers and their networks and infrastructure and we're their support. We're a customer of DX and I'm a services infrastructure architect. 

Prior to using this solution, we had three point solutions in place; one for voice infrastructure, one for servers, and one for networks. This tool meant we were actually able to collapse everything into a single interface which made my team's life easier, but it also meant that our first line staff then just had one view of the customer's entire infrastructure.

The big attraction of this product is its out-of-the-box capability. It means that there is not a lot of custom development required. 

The product could be improved if the company kept up with service developments, in particular from the cloud vendors. As Azure, AWS and Google are rapidly adding features and functions to their own public cloud offerings, UIM has not necessarily kept pace with that development. In particular, it was the platform as a service capabilities. The infrastructure as a service capabilities were quite good, but the platform as a service was lacking significantly, along with a lot of the serverless capability as well. 

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

The stability is pretty good although it still has some quirks. It is a legacy tool and as such, there's been a lot of angst in the development of it. Once you've been through years and years of bug fixes it's quite stable. Some of the newer components are still rough around the edges.

In our initial roll-outs in the early years, the product proved to be quite effective in its scalability, but as we continued to grow, we have seen scaling limits. My team, the infrastructure team, are primarily the administrators of the solution. There are six of us in the team. Then there's our level one in our team with about 20 people, and then there's some SMEs that handle specific components within the system and there's probably 70 or 80 of them.

They're pretty knowledgeable and they rely heavily on documentation. I don't know if they have a lot of direct hands-on field experience, but their knowledge of the documentation is pretty good.

The initial setup, which I carried out, was complex. That is primarily because it was a significant learning curve at the time. I was also supporting the existing infrastructure and trying to learn the new tool as well. We didn't have an implementation strategy. We piloted it with one customer and then expanded that to two more, and then expanded out to the rest. At the time, it would have been about 30 odd customers. In total, I think it took about a year as the customers cycle through their contracts, we flipped them over to the new tool. Once we got a feel for the tool, it was much easier. 

 I believe we pay around CAD $400,000 per year. It's a pay per consumption fee. 

We're currently evaluating other options. I'm looking for an MSP friendly tool. We have to be able to differentiate between different customers. I'm looking for a tool that has a good degree of scalability, more than what we have now. A tool that, if it doesn't have capability in the box, provides a means to extend the tool for our custom purposes and also a better price point than we have now.

Cloud vendors have expanded their services and features and functions within their own platforms. Having to rely on a third-party to keep pace with that development cycle has proven rather disappointing. That's why we're looking for a tool that has the capability to enable us to extend the tool on our own, if we choose to.

I don't think I would recommend this product. My issues stem from the turnover between companies that we've experienced in the last 10 years. The continued development of the tool has not been great. I think they've become lost in their tracks.

I would rate this solution a six out of 10. 

I primarily use DX UIM to capture performance data and faults.

DX UIM's reporting and customization need to be improved. There are also issues with its stability, and it requires a lot of effort to execute and implement something.

I've been using DX UIM for two years.

There are issues with DX UIM's stability.

DX UIM is scalable.

DX UIM's technical support team are good, but there's a shortage of resources, which means they can be slow to respond.

Positive

The initial setup was difficult compared to other tools available in the marketplace. Deployment took three to six months for us as we were working on complex architecture, but on a simpler one, it would take around two to three weeks.

I wouldn't recommend DX UIM to other users because of its issues with reporting and stability - SolarWinds would be a better choice. I would give DX UIM a rating of seven out of ten.

We use this solution for monitoring our infrastructure environment; servers, storage, database, and applications. This is an infrastructure monitoring tool. I'm a solutions consultant and we are customers of DX. 

The value of UIM is that we are not only monitoring the infrastructure asset but also monitoring it as an IT service. 

I would like to have the option to monitor via mobile phone so it would be helpful if DX would develop a mobile application. I'd like to see a single dashboard and automation implemented as part of the solution.

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

The environment around UIM is sometimes complex and can cause some instability. We have good support to resolve issues when this happens. 

In terms of the knowledge base of the technical staff, they are average. 

Positive

SolarWinds and ManageEngine are both good tools with good technology in this sphere but for our purposes they are unlikely to be able to scale and provide the information we need in our environment. It might work for other companies that have a different environment from ours. It's difficult to compare these solutions head to head because it all depends on an environment's requirements.

The initial setup is easy. Deployment time depends on the number of devices to be monitored and the metrics that are going to be collected. We have 15 users and the solution is used on a daily basis. 

Licensing costs are reasonable and affordable. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We use this solution for server, networks and storage monitoring purposes.

The feature that we've found to be  very helpful is the way the solution categorizes the devices to identify groups, groups of devices and clusters. This allows us to be aware of their position within the topology.

The product also has a standard monitoring process regardless of operating systems; it monitors everything the same way.

We have experienced challenges with finding a mechanism to deploy the agents, but it's only on the first deployment so it's not a big issue.

We would also like to see some enhancements in assignment and adaptation functionality for consoles.

We have been working with this solution for three years.

We have found this to be a fairly stable solution.

We have setup this solution so that we can easily scale up as necessary. It is a multi-tenanted arrangement, so if  new companies come on board, we will then deploy it to them.

We haven't had any issues at all with the environment in terms of support.

Positive

The initial setup of this solution was very straightforward, with the full deployment taking around three months to complete.

We have a partner company who carried out the implementation with us. We first worked on the high priority servers, then the next level, and so on.

We recommend this as a good starter solution for organizations, however, we would advise that additional functionality will significantly increase the cost of this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We mainly use the solution for infrastructure monitoring on our customers' in-house systems. 

This solution allows us to have an overview of the infrastructure and identify areas where the performance isn't optimal, or where upgrades could be carried out.

We would like the navigation of this solution to be more user-friendly for our system administrators.

Also, the solution is quite complicated, so we would like there to be better documentation on the processes, in order to ensure we know exactly how it works.

We have been working with this solution for around 10 years.

We have found this to be a stable solution.

It is an easily scalable product.

The technical support for this solution could be improved. 

Neutral

The initial setup of the solution was straightforward.

We have found that the ROI with this solution, is that the features available allow for us to spot potential issues, before they occur and cause problems for our customers.

We would advise any organization implementing this product, to ensure that there are good training materials available for their users, as it is a complicated solution and requires some specific knowledge prior to use.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.