Infraon IMS Reviews

This is for our end client, who is one of the largest banks in India. There are various branches from the central data center, and we have to connect with all the branches and private networks. There are about 10 locations that are connected. 

We are an IT company. We use their products for our end clients. We started this solution with one of our banks. Now, we are extending it to other customers. We have about 200 customers across the world. We are slowly getting this product to other customers.

We use this Infraon IMS for link monitoring, where we want to monitor if the links are up or down. We also needed some alternatives to proactively understand what is required to make the infrastructure strong. 

We wanted to automate processes. That is why we bought this tool.

We are using the latest version in the cloud. We are using a few network devices on-premises. For another server, we are using the cloud version. Since it is a private network, we use the on-premises software and SaaS.

All the information is in one place. It makes our IT teams less busy because we don't have to do anything manually. Using this tool, we are able to give reports to our higher ups. We don't have to manually create reports. This makes it easier for us.

We use the solution to automatically trigger processes to help us resolve issues. The whole IT process has been automated, such as trying to map all the users and the escalation process. So, if any issue happens, we get an SMS and WhatsApp of the report. If there is a critical issue this has to be sorted out, like the entire data center being down, then there is an alarm. 

We don't need to hire too many people for support. We have tried to reduce our manpower using this tool and also audits can be automated. Our entire process efficiency has improved. 

There is no manual work because the workflows are automated. Everything is transparent with our IT processes using this tool.

The product is great. We integrated the ticketing tool with the monitoring tool. The agent ID creation is very easy when using this tool. It is so user-friendly. The user interface is good and also the pricing is great. 

The user interface is good, even a business user or layman can raise a ticket. 

They provide an all-in-one monitoring tool. If an issue happens, it gets integrated with the email, then proactively that ticket is being raised, which is good. 

The reporting is good. It is very clear. It is a customized report; however you want it, you can customize it.

We use the solution’s role-based dashboards. The head of IT wants to use it so he can see holistically what is happening, e.g., what are the tickets being raised, what is a major issue, and what escalations are happening. There are different dashboards that are customized. For our head of IT, we made a separate dashboard. Then, for the executives, we made a separate dashboard based on time, like hourly or daily. All these reports were customized.

While they didn't provide a BI dashboard, they provide a kind of graphical dashboard for whatever the issue is. Once you click on a particular ticket, it drills down to the issue, what it is and when the issue was raised. The drill down is good. It is more like a business intelligence (BI) tool. You can just scroll and zoom in. It goes deep into the issue. Once you click a particular dashboard, it will take you to the next page, then it takes you to the issue.

Infraon IMS provides workflow automation for real-world use cases. This makes our work easier. It is just drag and drop (no coding) to build the workflows. For example, a particular ticket is being raised. It gets routed to three important IT executives within our team. From our team, it gets routed to the next level. 

The learning curve is good. Initially, there were no issues. As soon as the users saw the product, they understood what the product was. There wasn't any kind of training required for this product because it is very straightforward.

The AI features are missing. Other tools have AI features that automatically predict and understand what is the problem, trying to forecast the problems that might happen. That is not there. I am unsure if there is AI capability in this solution or not, but they should add it, like their competitors.

It has been a year and four months.

Stability is good because they have a kind of high availability as well as redundancy. If a particular site goes down, automatically the next site picks up. So, there hasn't been any kind of downtime. There have been no issues with it. Even if issues happen, they are just for a minute or so. 

We started with 100 devices. Now, we have around 600 devices using this solution. There are 120 IT support people (Level 1 & 2) using this solution. There are around 40 engineers who use this tool to monitor all devices. Then, we have around 10 IT managers who are using this. Also, all the higher ups use it, like the CEO, CIO, and heads of IT.

We will use this solution for a long time. We are adding more users and licenses, so we will grow with this product and not try to take it out of our infrastructure.

The support is good. Once an issue is raised, we immediately get a report from them. Email support is a bit slow. Once you drop an email, it takes time. However, they have a toll-free number. You can call support from that.

We were using ServiceNow, which is a competitor's product, as well as different tools for monitoring. All of which were expensive, e.g., ServiceNow and SolarWinds. ServiceNow's support was also bad. It took time to get support. ServiceNow came through a partner and did not work directly with us. ServiceNow is the product, but there is a partner below them who resells to us. With Infraon, the partner is not there. We work directly with Infraon.

The good thing about this solution being certified is procedures need to be followed. The certification makes it easier. We were spending almost 10 times the cost of Infraon on ServiceNow, and Infraon has the same features as ServiceNow. I don't think there is any difference between it and ServiceNow. In fact, Infraon was better.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took just a matter of a week's time, then we had the tool running. It went live in a week's time. 

The configuration for all of the devices was very easy. Configuring all the devices to monitor things, like network devices and desktops. Only the IPs had to be configured, and they were so easy to configure.

The implementation strategy was very straightforward. We wanted all the devices to be configured. We had some clients. Before we had this tool, we were missing a lot of devices. For example, we never knew if something was whitelisted. 

Before we had this tool, we spoke to the technical team. They shared the scope of work and made everything very clear. 

Our team did the installation.

Maintenance is being done remotely from Infraon. 

This is a tool just for daily operations. We didn't calculate the ROI for this particular product. It has improved the efficiency of the workforce. We don't use much IT support. We have also reduced the number of IT guys actually using this tool. 

If you are looking for the best product with the best price, Infraon is the best product. We evaluated five to six products and finally felt Infraon was better because of the pricing model, especially because it was more flexible.  

The product might have 100 features, but we didn't require those 100 features. We required some 20 or 30 features out of the product, like customizing the web portal. Based on that, the pricing was customized. It is more flexible, in respect to Infraon, but the model was not the same with others. What they do is they give you 100 features, and say, "This is the single price you have to buy." 

They don't charge much on the workflow built. Once a product is done, they add some services to it because the workflow doesn't come by default. You need to customize it. 

Before you choose Infraon, check all the features that they are providing because their pricing varies based on features. So, you must be clear with them, "These are the features that are required, then this is the cost."

We evaluated Zoho, which was a bit complex. Their pricing model was a bit confusing. Zoho didn't have proper certification, i.e., the standard procedures that need to be followed for audits and other things were not being followed by Zoho. With respect to certification, quality of product, and pricing, we felt Infraon was better. Infraon was more flexible in respect to its pricing.

Globally, ServiceNow is a very big brand. ServiceNow is being used for most enterprise customers. Because our customers decide which tool we have to use, we take this solution to our customers, and say, "This is a better tool. Can we replace ServiceNow with this one?"

Before we had this tool, we had to invest a lot on ServiceNow, which is 10 times the cost. I had a bashing from my higher ups, "Why was this tool not being evaluated well before?" The answer was because we always go for brands that are costly. That is something I learned from this particular product. There are companies who sell at lesser cost with good new features.

I would rate this solution as eight out of 10.

We use Infraon IMS to monitor devices and links. It will provide information including downtime, uptime, what devices are connected to the router, memory utilization including how much and at which location, etc. All of this information is available with the report, which has fine granularity.

It is running on a Linux system.

The reporting capabilities are good. We have to manually configure reports based on what data we require. For example, it can show the downtime for uptime for a device. Once we configure the profile for each report, we can download it.

We use Infraon to automatically trigger processes to help resolve issues when they are detected. For example, it will automatically raise a ticket and send an email to our ISP when it detects that a link is down.

When a process is triggered automatically, we run one of the pre-configured scripts. We have not created any of the scripts ourselves but rather, only use the ones that are provided. These scripts are important because we use them for generating reports and emailing alerts, which are also used for auditing purposes.

For example, our IT department has been improved because Infraon automatically creates reports that show our site uptime and downtime. We can see which site has more bandwidth utilization, link utilization, and link problems. It will show us what other devices are in the environment, which ones we need to replace, and how many sessions are being created.

This solution assists us with our billing because we have many critical locations, and these need to have one hundred percent uptime, every month of the year. We generate reports monthly, quarterly, and yearly, which we then submit to management to cite the total uptime. Based on this, the billing is done.

With respect to the learning curve, this tool is easy to learn because there is a lot of training material included. I suggest that the entire team learn to use it, rather than just one person, because it will make the tool more effective for the organization.

The most valuable feature is alerting. We get email alerts when a link is down that tell us which device is having a problem.

The granularity of the reporting works well for us.

The GUI is in need of improvement. It is not drag-and-drop or easy to use. It is needed to configure the parameters for SNMP but using the interface is a time-consuming task. Some manual configuration is required. It also needs to be more granular.

Improvements to the GUI should be made such that a payment is able to configure all of the email features.

We have been working with Infraon IMS for three years.

Stability-wise, it's good and we have had no issues using this tool. We have not had any corrupt files or other problems.

With respect to scalability, this product is good. We are able to scale the product according to what we need; however, in our organization, it is not much. We have not needed to scale the product beyond what we initially set up.

We have three or four people that work with the product and access it centrally. At the remote locations, we have perhaps 20 people that access it.

My experience with Everest is that the support is very good. They have made suggestions about the best products for us to use and recommended options for us to easily adapt them.

I would rate the support a nine out of ten.

Prior to Infraon, we used another solution but it was not as extensive.

The initial setup was simple, although because it is a Linux-based tool, we needed help from Everest to do it. In one day, the deployment can be completed.

The installation will take perhaps five or six hours but after this, it needs to be configured using the GUI. The length of time it takes for configuration depends on your requirements, and what parameters you need.

The vendor assisted us with the deployment.

We have definitely seen ROI since we first implemented Infraon, three years ago. It has given us clarity and helped us with compliance during audits.

Licensing is calculated on a per-user basis. We have four users in our environment.

I would prefer if licensing was device-based, with unlimited administrators or users.

We evaluated other vendors prior to selecting Infraon. One of them was ManageEngine.

We chose the Everest tool because of its support for devices from many OEMs. Some other tools are used strictly for a specific OEM and some devices were not covered. Everest seemed to support everything that was available in the market.

We have our system configured for location-based dashboards, as opposed to the role-based option.

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing this tool is that it can be used easily, and the compatibility with other products is good, but it has to be carefully configured based on your requirements. That will give you the best opportunity to properly utilize it.

Overall, this is a good tool from my perspective. We use it very extensively and productively to overcome problems and understand issues such as link availability, bandwidth utilization, and the nature of our network traffic. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Their discovery is very quick and they have a CSV file upload mechanism that allows you to onboard five thousand devices a day.

I would like to have the option to add a new device or meet with the next release. Right now, it needs to be done from the backend which results in a heavy reliance on R&D.

I have been working with this solution for three years.

Infraon is stable.

Infraon is scalable.

Technical support could use some improvement in terms of their response times an diagnostic accuracy.

I used Nagios in the past and switched because it is open-source and requires a lot of dependency on developers. With Infraon, everything is already built-in so you are able to plug-and-play with the system.

The initial setup is not too complex.

I think that the pricing for this solution is reasonable and varies by number of devices.

I would recommend this solution to anyone looking for a cost-effective solution for software and POS monitoring and would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I primarily use this product to monitor the switches in my network.

Infraon IMS allows us to do several things from a single window, which is important to us.

This product provides workflow automation, which is important to our work. When we modify the topology, the SNMP profile is updated automatically.  It is easy to add nodes.

One of the most valuable features is configuration backup. If any changes are made subsequent to the backup then we are notified.

The reporting capabilities are good. If anything is wrong then I get an immediate email that contains the log.

Once the initial setup is complete, using it on a daily basis is easy. The initial learning curve is steep.

The graphical view of the topology does not show us all of the connectivity in our network, which is something that could be improved.

We implemented Infraon IMS between two and three years ago.

An on-premises solution does not normally have much downtime. There have been a few instances of downtime but these were related to power issues. We have no complaints regarding stability.

It is possible to add nodes, so it is quite scalable. It is being used for all of our switches. 

I am the only person who uses the product regularly in an administrative role.

We do not plan on expanding our usage at this time. There has been no additional investment during the pandemic.

I am getting good support for the product. I had to contact them twice when power-related issues resulted in downtime.

I did not use a similar solution prior to this one. This is my first experience with this type of product.

The initial setup is complex and not very easy to do. There are a lot of dependencies that you need to configure, as well as the nodes. You have to create the SNMP public profile and for each device from different OEMs, you need to have a different setting.

Overall, it was a plain setup that didn't require a very deep strategy.

Initially, it is a little complex. However, once it is all set up, using it on a daily basis is easy.

Our deployment took approximately one month.

We had a partner to do the implementation, and I was in charge of it from our side. I supported the partner and I was required to add all of the switches. I was also responsible for supplying the details and configurations that were needed.

The partner we used was Netpoleon and they are nice people. They are talented and technically proficient. Overall, they are good.

I did not evaluate other products before choosing this one. The partner that I approached was supporting this solution and suggested that it was a good one. Based on this, I didn't look at others on the market.

I don't regularly log in to look at the dashboards. If I get an alert that a link is down then I go in to check but otherwise, I don't normally log into the system.

I don't currently make use of the AI capabilities.

This is a product that I can recommend to others. It is simple to use and the trigger point is good. The backup, restore, and comparison features are all good.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are geographically spread across 11 countries. At each location, we have a firewall and other critical IT infrastructure. We have to log in to all the systems and different URLs, so we are very dependent on some individuals who have the knowledge, control, or access. Moving to this system, I have a single portal where I can access all 10 locations' firewalls from that portal with easy manageability.

We are in the life sciences domain with a lot of customer-hosting apps in our AWS cloud. We deployed this monitoring system in our on-premises environment to monitor all the critical IT infrastructure.

We are using the latest version.

We use the solution to automatically trigger processes to help to resolve issues when the solution detects compliance violations. While they don't have a report, this feature is in our environment. For example, our system is ISO27000, but it can miss this, instead our system goes through the on-premises process. We have segregation of duty, data storage, and the level of data encryption as well as how the server is being protected from the onset. We took all these things and kept them since it is under our validated environment. Any system implemented with us has to follow through this process. We can confidently say that our system is there, but the moment we move to SaaS or hybrid, we won't have control because they don't provide this. So, they need to build in this sort of solution for SaaS or hybrid. 

I have a Moscow office. In Moscow, I don't have an IT engineer. We have a very small team in a satellite office. We can easily manage the firewall, servers, and other things from here. When we are operating a central kind of implementation for any new initiatives, that is a big challenge for us. However, by implementing this monitoring tool, I can write any policies or procedures centrally. The process is harmonized so I don't need to worry about whether these policies play well with a particular Germany or Moscow firewall. This is more like a control mechanism. We could see the responses after implementing this tool.

Manual or time-consuming activities have been reduced by implementing this solution. Getting this information from each site takes a lot of time. Sometimes we get the wrong updates where the accuracy is not intact. By implementing a centralized tool that manages availability and the health situation of far away systems, this was ideal rather than doing it manually. Though, it was a learning curve for us.

The most important part is the real-time network monitoring dashboard. It pops up when you log into the system so it gives you clear-cut, real-time availability of the firewall/gateway-level infrastructures.

My network team, the server team, and I have different dashboards. There is also a complaints manager who has different access. These different dashboards are important because we are in the life sciences domain, and segregation of duty is very important.

The role-based dashboards summarize data points as well as provide charts and topology diagrams in a single window. We support all other regions from India. Therefore, it is better that the dashboard is a single point of entry to each site, managing those infrastructures. 

The dashboards tell us the details. For example, even in the firewall, I can go to the port level. Then, on the port level, I can deep dive on the configuration. It will also go into the level of services, memory, CPU, and storage availability. From the dashboard, you can look at that specific infrastructure or asset.

The graphical user interface is very good. It is readable, which doesn't need a technical expert to do that. That is critical. You don't need a network administrator or some other administrator to see the monitoring or anything else. Non-technical people can log in and understand it. 

Infraon's individual tunnel monitoring capabilities are more critical on the firewall side because we have a lot of Point-to-Point Tunnels created. The tunnel usage is more critical when you have a ransomware attack or any other attack has happened. When I implement a policy for a particular configuration, it will apply to all the tunnels. That makes easy for us to manage or maintain. This is a very important feature.

The reporting capabilities are a challenge and could be improved. We have been trying to connect to it from our help desk ticketing system, because the ticketing system manages asset tracking, which has been a bit challenging for us. Otherwise, they give some reports that are okay, but we do not use them much because we work in the dashboard. 

This solution is available in SaaS. The reason why we have not gone to SaaS is they do not have a country-specific separation of assets. There are GDPR and other requirements that might require country-specific sensitive information to be filtered as well as other things that need to be taken care of. Normally, if we need to do any compliance, like ISO27000 compliance, they don't have such a report within their system. This kind of report is missing from their SaaS. That is one of the reasons that we have gone to the on-prem version, where I am assured that my data is secure. I can take the report and show it to them from a compliance point of view. However, the moment we go to a SaaS model, I don't have control of the data and where the data is stored. I don't receive any complaints-based reports from the SaaS model.

We have been using this solution for four to five months, including the implementation and PoC. We did the PoC in November 2020.

It is stable. We have never had an issue.

Since it is on-prem, storage and our virtual environment are within our control. There has been no issue in terms of scaling up with the system. The scalability is good.

We have five to six people working in the system for different purposes. I log into the system based purely on availability, systems' health statuses, and other things. At the same time, a network engineer will have much more involvement than that. 

Within our system, we have around a 34-member team. Out of those 34 members there are only five or six people using this system because I don't want to give everybody a login with access to it. Since we centralize the management of the system, there are only a few people who have access. We built it in such a way that we manage it with limited resources.

The technical support is good. They are very aggressive. They understand that requirements are very important. 

Earlier, we were using Zabbix, which is open source. We had a lot of challenges with it. We had to build a distributed Zabbix environment, giving it a different kind of report. We were set up on that. While the product was very good, we were not capable of properly implementing it. 

Infraon IMS reads firewall logs, which is an important reason why we chose this product. There were other products where we had an issue reading the logs of firewalls and other things. Most of the tools provide an SNMP log, but we can reach syslog and other firewall logs with this solution. The best part: Our policies can be driven from this system and applied to multiple firewalls. For example, I am writing a rule for some URLs or specific sites to be blocked. I can then write one single policy which can be pushed to all 10 different locations. Earlier, we used to log into each system and do this process. Now, the system takes care to push these common policies.

This tool was introduced by one of our vendors. Through them, we got to know this tool and engage with it. 

We built a PoC where we provide all this information. That PoC was running in 30 days. Effectively, once the PoC was complete, we upgraded the system to production. That is how it happened. So, the implementation was very smooth. 

We started with a PoC for around 20 assets. This takes a day or two, but it took a lot of time to understand the configuration and make changes. That took a couple of weeks because we were not familiar with their dashboard and they were not familiar with our life sciences domain requirements and regulatory requirements. That was the challenge. Once they understood our requirements, the configuration part was more like a day-to-day job.

The team is very eager and aggressive on this. Priya put a lot of effort into the system. She provided more clarity on how to implement it. She also understood our requirements. Any tool implementation is successful based on the people who were involved and how well they understand the customer requirements and implementation. In this case, the vendor's team was good. 

Maximum two to three major players were involved from our end, maybe someone from network admin and another person on the server side. They were directly involved, but there were a few other people, like the site engineers, who contributed but weren't directly involved.

For setup and training, we only ever worked with the Everest team.

It gives us a lot of time savings. 60% to 70% of our time has been saved.

We are able to see the availability. Before people know that the infrastructure is down, we are able to get this information from the system. That is critical as far as infrastructure operations. This solution provides cost savings and is effective.

Our response time is within 30 minutes for any support. This solution provides alerts immediately, so we are within our SLA, giving efficiency to our support.

It improved our data and availability accuracy over doing the work manually. Once we installed this central system, our site engineers who provide the data started believing in the data's accuracy.

The cost model is within our budget. I have less than 180 critical assets, but the moment that I have 1,000 assets, then the license model is totally different. I don't know whether they are capable of handling that kind of a load. They could revisit the licensing model. They are not mature enough to define this license. We had a discussion about that. 

They have given us different services as a separate license, but the cost is not there proportionally against those services. The cost was one number, but the number of services were specific to the license. For example, for server licenses, they have X quantity, and network licenses also have X quantity, but they cumulate the cost and then provide it. They don't provide the unit cost. Normally, when you work in costing, you should have some kind of clarity about standard, professional, or enterprise kinds of models, or go with a unit-based license. So, we redid our licensing cost and they provided it. So, they should work on their licensing model.

We evaluated ManageEngine and this solution. After doing the PoC for Infraon IMS, we were happy with it so we ended up implementing it. We didn't go with other tools because of cost and the support from the bigger players is limited. We got burned with an implementation of a bigger player previously and were not keen on going that way.

Normally, you have a product for different sectors. For example, network management will have a separate tool from server management. Here, it is a mixture of these tools in one system. Additionally, you can do vulnerability and penetration testing from this associated product. You can do network auditing, vulnerability assessment, and penetration tests on a particular critical infrastructure. Plus, you can do monitoring. I didn't see many tools that had this combination of services. There are many enterprise tools available, but we cannot afford those. This solution was something that we could afford and achieve what we really required.

I would recommend this tool for people who want to have data accuracy in terms of availability and policy harmonization. They should look for this tool.

We are very good at integrating it with third-party applications, like AWS and other information security platforms. For our SOC, we build using some other tools, like Acunetix as SAS programming. We have integrated all these things.

I haven't seen any workflow automations.

We plan to increase our licenses going forward. However, Everest is a small company, and that has risks. I don't know their five- or 10-year plan. They need a proper roadmap for customer support, engagement, etc.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10. The licensing model, the compliance report, and integration of other tools are little challenges that we have with the tool. Though, we are happy with the tool. Aside from that, our requirements have been fulfilled. 

We have been using it to monitor our data center services, including servers, storage, and all our security appliances. We have a 24/7 NOC operating at our data center and they have been using Infraon IMS extensively for network and data center monitoring.

We also are using Everest Infraon Desk to manage our assets, our incident management system, and our ticketing system, and it's helping us to achieve our ITSM rules.

It's on our own private cloud.

We were using a lot of open source products to manage our ITSM. We didn't have asset management. We needed to have a network monitoring solution and we needed to have a system monitoring solution. We were using a lot of tools in our data center. That meant that our NOC and system guys had to maintain all these different kinds of devices, and maintaining those products was a headache. With Everest, we have a single, consolidated view of our system, our network, and even our ITSM requirements, like asset management, change management, and incident management. We are even using their ticketing system for our organization. It's been a great help for us in terms of managing our ITSM policies. 

In addition, it has helped us to achieve our ISO certification targets for which we need to maintain all incident management and incident reporting. We can also find an SLA report for our appliance.

We have also tested the workflow management, to try to find dormant VMs, machines that haven't had any traffic or that are not being used by customers; or if there are any VMs that are using very high CPU or memory or choking our network bandwidth. We're also monitoring NetFlow to see the traffic behavior of the VMs: What kind of traffic have they been using? We're using these workflows and NetFlow monitoring tools to zero in on the VMs, if there are any infections going on or if there are any management activities going on that have been using our infrastructure.

What I really like about it are the details that it provides whenever we click an icon or any of the objects on the dashboard. We get a detailed description. We're running 200-plus VMs in our infrastructure. If I click on any of the symbols I can see detailed information about a VM: the traffic, the resources utilized by that VM, and whether the SLA is being met by that VM and the services. That is visible on the dashboard. It's just a few clicks and you get all the details as required.

There are role-based access policies defined for our employees. For example, at the L1 level, we define the policies that they can view and the devices they can access. They can only view them, they cannot edit. Our higher-level guys can edit, add devices, and they can create multiple dashboards as required. This is important because each person in our NOC or our data center has specific, targeted goals. Some of the network admins only require seeing network traffic utilization. Some will require port utilization. They may require specific ports and specific devices to monitor a single application.

For example, we have a database system and we need to monitor the underlying network infrastructure related to it, as well as the application related to it. We created a customized dashboard and handed it to the application custodian or database custodian of that system so that he can get an overview of the condition of all the infrastructure that he is using.

We have set a role-based access policy for network admins and network operators so they will only be monitoring VPNs, network device connectivity, and all the tunnels. We are connected with multiple internet service providers, so we can monitor which of them is using a lot of traffic and where the traffic is coming from. 

The role-based dashboards provide data points and charts and topology diagrams in a single window. It's like a spider web, where the application, connectivity, and everything is defined for each user of those applications.

The granularity that Infraon IMS provides to us is really spectacular. If we see a VM in what may be an unhealthy state, we drill down and see what the issue is, whether it's a memory issue or a CPU issue, what time it was triggered, and how it was recovered. All these kinds of measurements are available via drill-down from an events list base.

In addition, the GUI is very interactive and customizable, because the dashboards are customizable. There are two parts to the GUI. One is the operation part where we can see reports and customize them. The other is the admin part where you can add devices. That has to be very quick because we are adding new devices every day, and it is very helpful. We are pretty satisfied with the GUI.

We were also amazed by the reporting capabilities. Previously, we were using open source monitoring systems, like Nagios and Cacti, and we were having a hard time with them. You need to customize each and every module and every parameter to generate an intuitive report view and a summarized query. So getting analytics or doing capacity planning was difficult. With Infraon IMS we're happy with the number of reports and the granularity. And its summarized view of the infrastructure helps us in planning.

In terms of improvements, I would like to see an integrated view of Infraon IMS and Infraon Desk. It would be very helpful if that were integrated into the solution.

In terms of additional functionality, a feature they may have but that I haven't been able to find is the ability for a manager to see all the tickets of his subordinates. It would be good if a manager could see every incident ticket, even those not assigned to him. That way, a manager could see every incident ticket that has been opened in the organization and assign them to individuals.

We've been using Infraon IMS for more than six months.

I have not seen any hiccups since the deployment. There haven't been any issues.

We have not scaled it that much, but per the information that I have, and from what we have seen in the infrastructure and system, increasing resources or trying to add modules is not too difficult. Because we were not previously using NetFlow monitoring, we added a small module for NetFlow monitoring, and the system was scaled out for the database sizing to retain the NetFlow sizes. It was straightforward.

Regarding expanding use of the solution, because we are providing services to our customers, we want to create a type of tenant-based model and sell it to our customers.

In addition, as of now we are only monitoring the infrastructure that we are handling, like data center services, meaning our infrastructure. We're planning to enhance it so that all our data center colocation customers can also have their own ITSM tools.

As far as I know, the experience with their technical support has been very wonderful. Whenever we have had any queries, they have responded promptly. The technical guys are in touch with our project team all the time. Whenever they need any plugins or tweaks, they have been helped by the Everest technical team.

We were using open source tools, like Cacti and Nagios, and we were using another solution for our ticketing system. We decided to switch because there are limitations with open source. We had to have a dedicated team assigned to the open source solutions and that team had to manage the system. There was a lot to tweak with open source, per our organization's requirements. 

We had Cacti for network monitoring to provide a graphical representation. For SLAs we needed to maintain a Nagios system where we had to add all our devices and network monitoring tools. We were also using a separate asset management tool which was not fully functional. It was a separate system and we needed to train our guys on multiple systems. It was a pain for the operation team, and the NOC team also had to look at different consoles and different solutions to find any compliance issues.

And the ticketing system also created a lot of impact, because previously we were using a plain vanilla ticketing system that was open source and not very feature-rich. It was just a basic ticketing system, and generating reports to get any analytics on incidents required a lot of manual work.

With Infraon IMS what we have found is a single pane of glass to view all our network monitoring requirements for our NOC system. 

The setup was pretty straightforward for our team because Everest sent a guy who helped us to develop the infrastructure and that helped a lot when it came to the initial deployment.

They required some VM cloud infrastructure information, like space and sizing. We had to prepare those machines before deploying the solution.

We had our guys trained on it within a week or so. They understand the architecture, as there are a lot of components built into this solution. There are databases, collectors, and some network connectors. But it's pretty easy to learn Infraon IMS because there aren't too many components that you need to set up.

Within a month or so our ticketing and NMS were already deployed.

As of now, our whole NOC team of 10 to 15 guys is using the solution. Our system team, which has about another eight people, is also using it, as are the executives to generate asset, compliance, and SLA reports.

We assigned two of our staff to the deployment, one from the network team and one from the system team, and the Everest guys were aligned with that. They helped our team to get it deployed and, in the next month, we rolled it out to production.

We have not done an ROI calculation yet, but I'm seeing a lot of impact as a result of the deployment of this infrastructure, with our guys needing less time to manage the NMS solution itself. We have a technical pool that manages our system and the operations of the data center. When they need to spend all their time managing the NMS system, we're losing all that time. Now, they don't need to focus on the management tools. They can monitor another customer and do other work. It's saving a lot of time for them, something like 20 to 30 percent of their time.

We had a lot of tools and products in the data centers and we were getting bogged down. All these solutions required resources and our guys needed to be trained on them. Whenever someone would leave, we needed to train the newer guy. It was creating a lot of havoc.

The pricing is reasonable, given the features that they provide. There have not been any additional costs beyond the standard fees.

We looked into ManageEngine, PRTG, and other tools. But for our infrastructure and our scale, we required something that could be scaled out and something that was customizable. We also needed something to provide us with ITSM tools, a help desk with workflow and a ticketing system.

We also evaluated Zabbix about a year and a half ago but the deployment cost was very high. It was going to take more than two months to deploy. Our guys were not so aligned with or trained on Zabbix. They would find it very difficult to manage all the plugins. So we opted not to go with open source.

With Infraon, we get a one-stop view of all infrastructure and every ITSM requirement that we have, from a single vendor and solution. It had good reviews in the international market also. We came across it because we had proposed it to one of our customers and we saw that the customer was very happy. While managing the system, we found that it is a very helpful tool.

We don't use Infraon IMS to automatically trigger processes to help resolve issues when it detects compliance violations, but we have triggered reports. We don't want any automation as of now, so we are only using manual intervention to take any actions. We need to be sure about our workflows. Once the actions are tried and tested then we will put in the automation.

The biggest lesson I have learned is around the consolidation of all our NOC and ITSM requirements in a single solution. We were only looking for an NMS solution, but they provided us with a workflow, automation, a ticketing system, and an incident management system. It has been a revelation for us.

Overall, it's a wonderful one-stop ITSM solution for infrastructure.

I use this product as my network monitoring solution.

Being an engineering product, the customization is easy for us compared to SolarWinds and ManageEngine.

It's a total integrated package. The feature that I like the most and the best part is the customization.

This product integrates well with any platform, and I don't see any issues with it.

We have enquired if there are any possibilities of monitoring non-IPBS devices.

Currently, I am using another security tool called Nizami Network to monitor the security solutions or automation-based networks, which is something that Everest, SolarWinds, or Manage Engine cannot do. 

I have been using Everest IMS for a couple of years.

We are using version 5.3, which is the latest.

In my experience, this has been a stable product.

As the number of devices changes, this product adjusts, so it is scalable.

There are 250 users in our organization.

We plan to continue using this solution.

I count on Everest's technical support more than anything else. I am 110% satisfied with their support.

Previously, we used SolarWinds. It's a good product, but the pricing is too high, and customization is not possible.

We last used SolarWinds two years ago.

It's a straightforward installation process. 

The length of time for deployment including installation, customization, and everything needed to get it running will take at least a week's time.

We had help from Everest for the implementation and deployment.

The price is much better than SolarWinds.

We pay for a number of devices on the accounts and since it is on-premises, we pay the maintenance charges for the year.

I don't require a technical team. I only require a team of two people for monitoring.

I would recommend Everest IMS to others.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Everest IMS a nine.

We got this product for a banking client to monitor whether leased lines are down or not. The bank and the branches are connected via leased lines. The basic intention was to monitor the status of the network and get alerts automatically if something happens to the network.

It is a stable product. After the initial configuration, you don't have to tweak it much. All systems of Everest IMS work perfectly.

There might be some features in other products that are currently not there in Everest IMS and can be included. I have not yet compared it with any other product.

I have been dealing with Everest IMS for about two years.

Stability is not at all a problem. 

We did not require technical support.

The initial setup took some time, but it was simple. It took us three to four days to deploy. We didn't have to ask or call a service engineer. There were no issues.

We did consider Zabbix. Because our customer was a bank, they didn't want to go for any open source solution. That was one of the reasons why Zabbix was not selected. Everest IMS was simpler, and it was not into open source. Another reason for selecting Everest IMS was that it is locally from India.

I would recommend Everest IMS because it is a very stable product and works perfectly after the initial configuration.

It lacked a module to manage the changes and configurations. We needed this module to obey the user guidelines given by the Reserve Bank of India and record the changes by using MCP, which is a submodule of Everest IMS. This module has just come out. It is a paid module. We haven't used it yet.

I would rate Everest IMS an eight out of ten.