Checkmk Reviews

Currently, I use two Dell PowerStore systems, and I'm responsible for disposing of systems in our environment. We need to upgrade our systems, but we are working on less pressing issues. 

Right now, we are focused on Windows ten to Windows eleven changes in our Xen environment. Therefore, we need the NFS from the PowerStore. Checkmk does not work too easily with the PowerStore. I use a PowerShell script as Checkmk runs on Linux and a Windows system, connecting with the Checkmk agent. 

On this system, a PowerShell script runs, accessing the PowerStore via the API to retrieve information. I create special outputs, needed by Checkmk, and then I get the information to Checkmk.

I utilize the API to monitor volumes, the entire PowerStore, including system fullness, data inclusion, and compression functions. This allows me to observe volume performance over months or years, enabling timely reactions. It also covers network interfaces and IOs. 

By gathering information from the PowerStore GUI, vCenter, and Sysensor, I need a single point for alerts. Checkmk helps me compare data and foresee issues, which is necessary.

I frequently program functions with PowerShell, and although Bash could be used, my specialization is in PowerShell. Two of us focus on programming in PowerShell for infrastructure optimization. I set up a dedicated server to run scripts every hour, generating files for Checkmk output. However, Checkmk does not allow running scripts at varying intervals. I am working on this in the raw version of Checkmk.

I have been working with Nagios, which is the baseline for Checkmk, for 16 years.

After an upgrade, if the line of the system is updated, Checkmk does not run. This is the only issue.

I have only one system, however, scalability is well-planned for us. It's very good. Occasionally, I experience minor CPU leaks that slow the system down, but overall, stability is excellent. Currently, I need to determine what and when to scale up. Adding more RAM or CPU speeds up the system.

The Checkmk documentation is the primary resource, and it is very good. I currently have no special forum for Checkmk and use Google or DuckDuckGo to obtain information. I search the Internet and find solutions on various pages or from different individuals.

Positive

Nexius is effective if the system is clean with clear responsibilities. If there are different servers not in the same cluster and varying responsibilities, then there is no problem.

The setup is generally very good. I work with the raw version. I manage Checkmk and install a new version if features are interesting, roughly every month. I perform the upgrade, approximately once a year, I upgraded from Red Hat to Ubuntu. The support in the Checkmk forum is very good.

From my perspective, the raw version is suitable for medium-sized businesses, particularly in Germany, where companies range from 50 to several thousand employees. It is a very good product for these companies. 

Overall, from one to ten, I rate Checkmk a nine.

It's primarily used for IT infrastructure monitoring, covering servers, including database monitoring. We work with both Linux and Windows servers.

Historical trending is a big one. We utilize the data from CheckMK in Grafana to visualize trends over time. This helps us identify patterns in our infrastructure, like CPU usage fluctuations over the past year or thirty days. It's essential for capacity management and making upgrade decisions based on accurate historical data.

I really like the auto-discovery feature. It automatically identifies new hosts entering the environment. We have a specific folder to assign them to, and it applies all the necessary monitoring rules we've set up. This saves a lot of time compared to manual configuration. 

Another feature I find useful is the ability to create custom monitoring checks. For instance, we can set up checks to monitor specific aspects of a MySQL database's performance, which is quite handy. So, these are the two features that I like the most.

Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert. I think this aspect could be enhanced, along with the functionality of the local checks. I need to better understand how to clear an alert, especially when you're focused on a task and just need to acknowledge it. Currently, it requires clicking through a lot of buttons to acknowledge and dismiss the alert. Therefore, it would be beneficial to have a more user-friendly approach to this process.

Apart from these considerations, the system is highly effective. Nevertheless, there is a certain learning curve involved in mastering its usage. For new users, it might not be immediately straightforward, and they might find it quite challenging to navigate initially. It could be helpful for them to streamline the onboarding experience and make the transition more seamless. The interface itself could use some refinement to ensure that it makes more logical sense, as there are numerous buttons and functions that can feel overwhelming. Therefore, a more coherent and user-friendly interface could greatly enhance the overall usability of the system.

At the moment, the suite requires the installation of agents on each individual host. So, in future releases, it would be good if there could be an option for an agent-less platform, eliminating the need to install agents on every single server. This would simplify the process and reduce the overhead of managing agent installations across multiple servers.

I have been using Checkmk for seven years. However, we're one version behind the current system.

My experience has been very stable. We've had very minimal outages. I was just trying to focus on what monitors the monitoring infrastructure, so we have that covered. It is very stable. It's pretty reliable. It's 99.99% reliable, I've had, like, maybe two or three times when we've had a brief outage on the Checkmk system. But overall, it's pretty good.

It is a scalable solution. We have hundreds and hundreds of servers, so it's pretty scalable. We have close to nearing 2,000 servers in our environment, it's pretty scalable. I'm using Checkmk with Grafana, which is a very scalable backend, so it's pretty good.

In our organization, there are around 300 users using this solution.

We do have technical support for Checkmk. It came out of Nagios, so it was built on top of that. So we are pretty early adopters of Checkmk. We started using it when it first came out, maybe in the last 10 years. So we haven't actually dealt with the support or anything like that. But from the guys I work with, it seems pretty reasonable. I've never heard any complaints about the support.

We use Oracle Enterprise Manager for monitoring our Oracle databases. It's similar to Checkmk, but it's more on a smaller scale. 

Oracle Enterprise Management is more suitable for Oracle database testing. It's heavily compared with CheckMK. CheckMK focuses on basic monitoring, whereas on the Oracle database, as far as our client's site manager is concerned, it offers more in-depth and built-in functions for monitoring blocks like table spaces and locked locks for users and blocking sessions things like that. So, it's more intimately connected with Oracle's internal spam checking. However, if you're looking for an advantage over CheckMK in that aspect. But CheckMK holds a clear advantage when it comes to IT infrastructure monitoring, more indefinitely.

We have two deployments of Checkmk. We have one for the networking team, which monitors thousands of switches and other network devices. And we have another one for the IT infrastructure team, which monitors our servers, storage, and other IT assets.

Our team handled the deployment process. The deployment is pretty automatic the way we've set up. For example, I got a new server. They automatically installed the agents during the build process. So, it gets picked up automatically, which is quite nice. 

We have a dedicated team that looks after the maintenance. The solution requires a bit of maintenance because we are trying to keep up with the latest patches and updates. 

I'd suggest dedicating time to using and learning it, as there's a steep learning curve involved. The extensive documentation provided should be thoroughly explored. So, it would likely be beneficial to undergo user training, given that it can initially seem quite overwhelming. Therefore, investing time in training your personnel to use this solution is a prudent step. Our own investment in time has certainly paid off, considering that it undeniably stands as a high-quality monitoring product.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

My company uses Checkmk for system monitoring of all our data centers, including servers, network compliance, storage, and so on and so forth. We also use it in our company for some custom application monitoring. In our company, we have done some custom application monitoring, like PaperCut for Genesys for Genesys, and then we implemented some application metrics that are not available in the default plug-in.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the auto-discovery that provides its users the ability to discover the services and the new component to be monitored automatically. Checkmk is the best solution because, in almost no time, one can import the server and have basic system metrics normally, along with SQL, and also the file system, file system monitor, and main application running automatically discovered.

The automatic discovery and rule-based configuration are some of the solution's best features.

The main room for improvement is in the solution's presentation and the integration area. In our company, we use the integration capabilities from ServiceNow. We also have another big monitoring solution in place in our company, which is Dynatrace. At the moment, there doesn't exist an out-of-the-box integration for Dynatrace. I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most.

The only implementation of Checkmk that allows high availability is the virtual appliance that has the option for the availability of a different box. Otherwise, you have to find a way to implement it manually with some custom solution, which could be an improvement.

I have been using Checkmk for seven years. I use the solution's on-premises version. I am a customer of the solution.

It is a very stable solution. I had faced just one stability issue with a particular version and the event console. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The solution is very scalable with the multi-site implementation capabilities it provides. Deploying at different sites and connecting them together makes the scaling-up process very fast. The availability part of the solution is not so easy to implement because you have to perform some manual scripting or some manual configuration, not the out-of-the-box one, though.

In our organization, all the IT teams use Checkmk, so we have approximately 90 users.

I had the opportunity to contact the solution's technical support and had always found a solution to our issues.

I have faced more problems with Dynatrace compared to Checkmk.

The initial setup of Checkmk was easy because it required just a few network rules and a few configurations from the network side, requiring just one network port to be open. With the latest version of Checkmk, the new agent has the ability to communicate using two-way communication, which is a little bit more complicated to implement for the network side because you have to allow two-way communication. With the older version, where almost everything is still supported, it's easier to get the implementation done with the help of the security team.

The time taken to deploy the solution depends on the number of servers and devices you need to add to your IT environment. If you want 2,000 or 3,000 devices to be added to your IT environment, the deployment usually takes approximately a month.

The price of Checkmk is cheaper compared to other enterprise products. I think its price is one of its best features since it allows our company to take it without a lot of budget approval internally. I think that price is one of the great qualities of the product because it's a good product available at a good price.

I would recommend those planning to use Checkmk to consider opting for Checkmk's basic courses since it can prove to be very useful. A person should also read Checkmk's documentation carefully because it's very detailed and updated. Most of the time, the solution's main issues can be resolved by reading the documentation.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

My company uses Checkmk to monitor our core servers, and we also use it for our network devices for more of a storing thing because the DNA part keeps about a week's worth of work, and that's about it. You can't look back into the previous year.

In my company, we all have too much on our plate, but if you take the time to look at the data provided by Checkmk, you can help troubleshoot all sorts of problems, especially when some events happen, as it helps users to narrow things down.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together.

Checkmk has been constantly improving the tool. I am quite impressed that Checkmk has been keeping up with changes. It would be appropriate to say that I am fairly impressed with Checkmk.

I am pretty satisfied with the tool myself. The documentation part of the solution has been improved so much since Checkmk started. In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more.

I have been using Checkmk for three or four years. I use Checkmk Version 2.1.0 or 2.2.0.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

With Checkmk, I have to constantly load the latest changes, and it sometimes introduces bugs, though Checkmk has improved a lot better on that front. I have adapted to the tool, and I pretty much keep up with the latest version of the tool. It takes only a while to fix the issues in the tool before Checkmk cleans them up because people report such stuff to Checkmk directly.

It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I don't have experience with the solution's technical support. The online forums of Checkmk help out a lot, so I have never really had the need to call anybody for assistance.

For monitoring, I haven't used any tools. I have experience with Nagios, after which I found Checkmk to be a much more efficient tool. Checkmk provides SNMP bulk walk for network stuff and at an individual level. Checkmk is much more efficient and less resource-intensive on the equipment, pulling large amounts of devices. Since I have used Checkmk for a while, I like the ability to customize and add your own thing, and the tool's flexibility is nice.

The product's initial setup phase was fairly straightforward, but I think it's a lot easier now with the newer versions starting from scratch and stuff.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I work in an educational institution, so it's hard to comment on whether the product has provided its users with a return on investment.

Checkmk has helped my institution save a lot of time. I have spent and invested a lot of time and years into Checkmk. I know some of our institution's technicians keep thinking that there might be something else that's easier, but I don't think they'll find anything that is easier and still gives you the flexibility as Checkmk.

Checkmk is a fairly reasonably priced solution. I work in an educational institution where complaints about cost always exist, but I think it is a reasonably priced product.

I haven't compared Checkmk with other tools, as I have been using it for so long, so I haven't looked at anything else.

My company did not evaluate other options available against Checkmk, as we were using Nagios and then stumbled upon Checkmk. In my company, we have been using Checkmk's open-source version for a year or so, but to get some of the advantages of what they call the agent bakery, where the updates for the agents are more automatic, we had to pay, which we have been now doing for quite a few years.

My company had evaluated a few other tools against Checkmk, like Netwrix and ManageEngine, but I was okay with Checkmk.

I think those evaluating Checkmk need to run through its docs and do the simple stuff, and then start looking at the data after turning off all notifications, to begin with, and start slowly with the tool's usage, or else it will overwhelm you. The tool's potential users need to consider its prices since it consists of services and hosts. If you have the kind of nature where you want to gather all the data because you are not sure what you need and don't need initially, the number of services you use can go up quickly. Once you figure out what you really need and what is nonsense, the tool becomes easy, which is probably true with anything you use.

I rate the overall tool a nine to nine and a half out of ten.

I am employed by a fintech company operating across various cities in Pakistan, each housing multiple data centers equipped with approximately 250 servers. We employ Checkmk for our server monitoring needs.

Within these servers, a variety of services are running. Our monitoring encompasses port status to verify service availability and checks for disk space to detect potential full file systems. Moreover, we extend our monitoring scope to include switches, routers, and all network appliances within our infrastructure.

We have integrated the product with our Slack channel, which has proven to be highly beneficial. This setup ensures that we receive immediate notifications on Slack whenever a service experiences downtime. These alerts allow us to track and analyze the downtime trends effectively, aided by the product's graphical representation of trends spanning the previous 400 days.

Our use of the product extends to monitoring multiple sites. Additionally, we've implemented various scripts within the solution to automate tasks. For instance, we utilize it to schedule and execute manual scripts for data copying and running backups at intervals of five to ten minutes. This approach ensures seamless data synchronization. All in all, Checkmk stands out as an exceptionally valuable tool for our operations.

The initial setup is a bit tedious, once setup properly its worth it.

I have been using the solution for eight months.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten. It is really stable.

I rate the product’s scalability a nine or ten out of ten because it’s on our premises. We have around 18 users on our team.

We are also using PRTG along with Checkmk. If something goes down in Checkmk, we have PRTG for monitoring purposes. At times, alerts on PRTG are quicker than Checkmk.

We have to install an agent on every machine. We have 250 servers, so we have to install agents on every server. The deployment might takes two to three days.

We implemented the solution in-house.

The product is affordable. We are using Checkmk Enterprise Edition, and it's really awesome.

People using the tool for the first time must install it on their own VMs. They must discover every rule before deploying it to production. Things might go wrong if we make mistakes while making rules. So, exploring the solution on our virtual machine is better than going to production directly.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Our main use cases for Checkmk are monitoring hosts and providing services to small customers. We use it to monitor both the hosts themselves and the services running on those hosts.

Checkmk helps us keep an eye on our systems, making sure they're running smoothly. It tells us about any problems with our computers and services. 

I find Checkmk especially useful in our country where power outages happen a lot. We can see when the power will go out and come back on, which is important because most of our machines have backup power. Plus, it helps us spot any issues with our network, so our work doesn't get interrupted.

In terms of improvement, Checkmk should be made more known to a wider audience. It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating. Tutorials can help, but overall, it needs to be more user-friendly and accessible for everyone. I'm not sure about additional features for the next Checkmk release since I haven't compared different versions. Currently, we're using the free version. Depending on our future needs, we might consider cloud-based options.

I have just recently started using Checkmk.

I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability.

The scalability is very good because it's used at an enterprise level to monitor over 55,000 servers worldwide, including BMW Global IT. I would rate it a ten out of ten. Currently, I'm the only one working with Checkmk in my company, but I plan to bring in two or three more technicians to work on it. I'll provide the necessary training for them since it's not something they are familiar with.

I have previously used Nagios Core and OMD. We switched to Checkmk because it fits well in both small and large environments. It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD. 

The easiness of the initial setup is a ten out of ten. To deploy it, I simply followed the documentation. It was a quick and easy process which took about an hour. I took my time to avoid mistakes, but overall, the steps were clear and easy to follow.

Checkmk's pricing seems fair. We are currently using the free version because we have only a few hosts, but as we expand, we will consider the cost, which I remember as being affordable.

I highly recommend Checkmk for any company looking to monitor their systems. It offers impressive standard plugins and the flexibility to use various scripting tools. It's a really good choice for monitoring. Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten.

We use Checkmk for process, host, and load monitoring. We create alerts based on certain patterns. An alert is created in case of an error, and Checkmk forwards the alert to our team members, who proactively work on the issue.

The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration. In today's market, there are more capable tools available. However, users with budget constraints can rely on Checkmk.

If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved. So, we need to log into the tool and manually delete or clear the logs. If one on-call person forgets to clear the logs and the same issue happens again, the next person will not get a notification. The alert will stay there, and Checkmk will think that this alert is already notified and the tech team is already working on it.

With this approach, if one person forgets to clear the logs, it becomes difficult for the next person, which can lead to an incident. Since we have a distributed and complex infrastructure where each alert is important, we can't tolerate such a situation. So we are self-alerted for that kind of situation, but unexpected incidents can still happen.

I have been using Checkmk for two to three years.

Checkmk is a stable solution, except for some downtime we experience in case of an upgrade.

I rate Checkmk an eight or nine out of ten for stability.

Around 20 users are using Checkmk in our organization. These 20 users are more focused on the alerts, but I believe more people can configure the solution.

I rate Checkmk six to seven out of ten for scalability.

Checkmk's initial setup is easy and quite straightforward.

I didn't set up Checkmk in my current organization. However, I tried my POC with the standalone version, not the containerized one. Plugins are also available for the solution's setup. We need to do some Google research to formalize the alert instance of our purposes. Checkmk's setup is not a big deal for someone with enough knowledge.

Overall, I rate Checkmk an eight out of ten.

We use it to monitor mainly Linux servers, including operating system metrics, processes, services, and so on. We also use scripting and monitoring logs.

It has helped with automation and faster monitoring of new nodes.

I like Checkmk's integration with the event management tool. It is easier to scale and administer, and it's really useful for us. 

Also, the licensing model is easier than previous tools like Nagios.

The alerting system in Checkmk is really useful for us, and it works properly. We don't have any major problems with the alerting system. It's okay for us.

The main challenge for us is that we're moving from Nagios to Checkmk, and we're still getting used to the new way of working. But basically, we're okay with it.

The difficult part was adapting from the old monitoring metrics to Checkmk and the way we provide information to other departments. 

Mainly, we've improved our monitoring system by working with Checkmk.

The interface could be simplified or improved because Checkmk provides a lot of information, but it depends on the information you need. Maybe it's too much information, depending on your use case. 

Normally, people who use this tool are technical users. They should have a high level of knowledge about the tool. It's true that it provides a lot of information, but it's useful information. So, we [as technical people] are okay with the interface.

Maybe we would like to work with AI intelligence to improve that way. And some kind of predictive monitoring, for example, and also with cloud AI-components.

We've been working with Checkmk for maybe five, six, even more years, but we had two environments. We have a legacy environment with an older version of Checkmk, and now we have a brand new, latest version of Checkmk. And this is what we are trying to integrate with the data lake.

We've been working with the latest version for the last three years, and we haven't had any major problems or issues with the solution. 

It's stable for us, more stable than Nagios.

We can scale if we need more services or more sites; there's no problem.

We didn't have many calls or issues open with the support department, but the few times we had to open a case, they worked fine.

Positive

We're starting to work with Elastic, and we would like to see the differences between Elastic and OpenText. We want to review the features of both tools and see what fits our needs. We're also evaluating other alternatives, but just focus on those two products, those two solutions.

We are starting to analyze and see the differences, but we don't have a decision yet. We need time to review it.

We work with different monitoring and event management solutions, and we want to integrate these metrics with Elastic or OpenText. We also want to get information from logs and traces. 

So we want to centralize and put all this information into a data lake and work with it. We work with tools like Nagios, Checkmk, and so on from a monitoring point of view. Also, tools like Netreo.

It is easy. For installation, it depends on our needs. For example, last week, we updated the system to a new version, and it took just one day to update several sites. 

For that update, there was just one person who handled it and took care of the maintenance of the solution. We have a team of five technicians working with Checkmk, but the updates only required one team member.

The integration capabilities are great. We have integrated Checkmk with ServiceNow's ITOM solution, and it works properly.

It saves time and money. Probably 50%, considering the license price, resources, and time.

For us, the pricing is cheaper than Nagios, even though they have increased the price this year.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.