Top APM Tools

Application Performance Management (APM) is a way for companies to monitor and manage their software applications and performance. It is a critical function managed by DevOps, IT operations, application teams, developers, support teams, business managers, and other application professionals.

Here at IT Central Station, we offer a crowdsourced platform that allows real users to share their opinions about tech products with the rest of the enterprise tech community. We have compiled over 70,000 views of the top APM tools by real users in the past year and analyzed their trends in the infographic below. All of our data is based on actual behavior of real users researching and comparing APM vendors on IT Central Station.

See all APM reviews here.

Top-APM-Software-2015-ITCentralStation-02

The most compared APM solutions for the first half of the year was CA APM v. New Relic with 774 comparisons by real users, while the most compared for the second half of the year was Appdynamics v. Dynatrace with 730. The most compared APM solutions of all of 2014 were Dynatrace v. New Relic, with over 1,127 comparisons on IT Central Station.

If you have any questions regarding our research or would like to read our reviews, please visit our APM section on IT Central Station at http://www.itcentralstation.com/category/application-performance-management.

Want to learn more about the top APM solutions on the market? Watch our recorded PeerPanel Webinar – APM Solutions: A User Perspective Roundtable.

Download our infographic in PDF format.

Embed our infographic on your site:

<img src=”http://blog.itcentralstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Top-APM-Software-2015-ITCentralStation-01.png” alt=”Top APM Tools &#8211; 2015 Edition – An Infographic from Enterprise Tech Central” width=”100%” class=”infographic_embedder” /><p class=”infographic_attr”>Embedded from <a href=”http://blog.itcentralstation.com/top-apm-tools-2015/” target=”_blank”>Enterprise Tech Central</a></p>

Year in Review: Congratulations to The Top Reviewers of 2014!

Thanks to all contributors for a great year of informative, dynamic and helpful reviews. Our community can only be as strong as the reviews we receive so we thank each one of you for your important part in our community’s growth!

Contributors Thank YouTop contributors have been recognized, vendors are joining—and best of all—the community, a leading source for real reviews from real users, is growing.

A special thanks to the following IT Central Station Top Reviewers of 2014.

Top Reviewers of 2014
# 1 Pablo Parnisari
Review of QlikView
# 2 Cecil Lozano
Review of Wrike
# 3  Jose Lopez Fernandez    
Review of AppDynamics 
# 4 Michael Foster
Review of HP LoadRunner
# 5 Guido Schade
Review of New Relic
# 6 Alex Baptista
Review of Fluke Network
# 7 Joseph DiVenere
Review of Dataflux
# 8 Todd Adams
Review of CA UIM (Nimsoft)
# 9 Isaac Earl
Review of Dell Foglight
# 10 Derek Hennessy
Review of Veeam Backup
# 11 Tom Ruediger
Review of MobiControl
# 12 Eric Johnson
Review of Aerohive WLAN

For more information about becoming a contributor, see Become a Contributor.

For more information about IT Central Station, see About IT Central Station.

Why DevOps Needs a Friend – Adopting APM When Performance Matters

Today’s guest blogger is Larry Dragich. Larry is the Director of Customer Experience Management at The Auto Club Group and an Expert Reviewer on IT Central Station. He has written extensively about APM and runs the APM Strategies group on LinkedIn.

As enterprises embrace the DevOps philosophy, and the coalescence of the Development and Operations continues, I foresee the conditions ripening to foster innovative methods of making application performance better and code deployments smoother. To me, the argument that system monitoring is just a “nice to have” and not really a core requirement for operational readiness dissipates quickly when a critical application goes down with no warning.

Why DevOps Needs a Friend

Why DevOps Needs a Friend

Application Performance Management (APM) has been bred with all the right elements to give us the insights we need to see the health of our applications. Similar to your most trusted watch dog, it alerts us to anomalies when events occur, providing awareness to the environment that only they can observe.

This is where APM can bridge the gap between Development and Operations, supporting the entire application lifecycle. There are certain APM principles that weave themselves in and through the DevOps philosophy that create a fabric of continuous improvement. The end-user-experience (EUE) is one of these threads, becoming the yardstick by which to measure application performance.

Development and Operations view APM in a slightly different light, largely because it is a concept that consists of multiple complementary approaches for addressing issues surrounding application performance. Understanding the different requirements for Development and Operations is one of the key elements needed for APM adoption to take off in both areas.

It is not necessarily the number of features or technical stamina of each monitoring tool to process large volumes of data that will make an APM implementation successful; it’s the choices you make in putting them together, creating an amplified feedback loop between Development and Operations (one of the core tenets of DevOps).

For more tips, and for further insight, click here for the full article.

Go to IT Central Station to read real users reviews of APM solutions including AppDynamics, Fluke Networks, CA, Dell and others.

Do You Throw Bandwidth at the Problem?

This week’s guest blog post is by Bruce Kosbab. Bruce is CTO at Fluke Networks – Visual. If you haven’t already, check out the real user reviews of Visual TruView here on IT Central Station.BruceKosbab

If you are a network manager you have likely faced two conflicting business directives when it comes to managing your network: 1) ensuring that you are delivering the optimal end-user experience with your network, and 2) reducing the operational cost of your network.

The need to ensure adequate end-user-experience puts constant pressures on IT to increase bandwidth in order to provide an effective service to the business, while cost management requires that bandwidth is limited, or even reduced. So, how can you manage these conflicting pressures?

Frequently, in situations in which there are persistent performance problems with an application the initial reaction is to throw bandwidth at the problem. However, often times you can substantially improve the end-user experience and reduce operational costs merely by using the bandwidth you already have more efficiently.

Informed Decisions

Throwing bandwidth at an application performance problem may be right answer, but this solution is not immediate. Ordering new circuits can take anywhere from 30 to 90 days to deploy. And, gathering data to understand the true bandwidth usage of a link can be time-consuming and error-prone.

  • Which network links need the most attention?
  • Is the bandwidth being used for business purposes?
  • Can I downsize a link while maintaining business service quality?
  • How can I demonstrate that an increase in capacity is warranted?

There are three common approaches used to manage network capacity:

  1. Long-range views of average utilization – shows a long-term trend of utilization, but traffic spikes and even brief periods of congestion are hidden by the highly aggregated averages
  2. Peak utilization – shows the days in a month that had a busy minute but doesn’t give insight into the amount of time during which time a link is congested
  3. Traffic usage totals – does not give any indication of congestion except in extreme cases

None of these approaches provides adequate information to make informed decisions.

The Problem With Utilization

Let’s look at an example in which average utilization is used. In this example, I’ve chosen a short time-frame, but it demonstrates the problem with average utilization.

The average utilization over the selected time period, Oct 9 through Oct 14, is approximately 45 percent. By looking at this information one could assume that bandwidth congestion on this interface is not an issue. If we were to use network utilization as a yardstick for bandwidth capacity planning then this interface would most likely not appear on our radar.

TruView Capacity Planning_image1

Data aggregation is at the core of the problem in using utilization for capacity planning. The utilization values in the above chart are aggregated into 2-hour intervals. This means that each point in the report represents an average over a 2-hour timeframe. This aggregation has a smoothing effect on the data that masks high-congestion periods.

To demonstrate the smoothing effect, let’s zoom in on 60-minute timeframe within the time period shown in the above chart. On the afternoon of Oct 11th the utilization peaks at around 80 percent, which is not evident in a 5-day view of the data.

This level of granularity is what is needed to truly understand the network utilization. The problem is that getting this fine level of granularity over a month or a year is not feasible because it requires a vast amount of data to be stored and displayed in order for the real utilization to be visually and quantitatively apparent.

TruView Capacity Planning_image2

There is a Better Way

There is a technique for analyzing network utilization, which Fluke Networks’ products use. It provides more actionable and accurate decision-making information. We call this data Network Burst data. Burst Utilization indicates the amount of time interface utilization is greater than specified thresholds.

By using Burst Utilization you can determine how long the congestion of a link exceeded 80 percent utilization or other utilization thresholds. With this type of information you can make decisions on whether to upsize (or downsize) a link or whether to investigate how the link is being used.

The advantage of Burst Utilization is that if link congestion levels can reported based on 1-minute granularity regardless of the reported time frame, a day, a month, a year, without loss of information fidelity. Contrast this with using average utilization over 15, 30, or 60-minute time ranges, which dampen the utilization trend, and make accurate capacity planning decision very difficult if not impossible.

Network managers typically want to begin to keep an eye on a particular interface when it spends more than 10 percent of time above 80 percent utilization. This translates to a little more than a half day out of a typical workweek. When the utilization burst reaches 20 percent time spent at the 80 percent threshold, i.e. a full work-day, then it may be time to either upgrade the link or investigate how it’s being used.

TruView Capacity Planning_image3

The chart shown above lists the interfaces being monitored and their respective burst data. The color breakdown indicates, for each interface, the time spent over 30 percent utilization (yellow), 60 percent utilization (orange), and 80 percent utilization (red). The interface listed first is obviously in trouble. It is running above at >80 percent utilization all of the time.

Gathering Data to Make a Decision

If we look at Burst Utilization for a given interface we can determine, at a glance, which days of the week and hours of the date are most congested.

TruView Capacity Planning_image4

And then, we can investigate whether the bandwidth is being used for business purposes or for recreational use.

In the chart shown below, it appears that most of the bandwidth is consumed by legitimate business applications. The 1755/TCP application bears further investigation though.

TruView Capacity Planning_image5

When all of this information shown above is accessible in a single solution and in one place in that solution, making bandwidth-sizing decisions can be quick and easy.

Call To Action

The goal of managing network bandwidth is not to report on the utilization of a link over time, but rather to ensure that you are buying the right amount of bandwidth to meet the needs of the business.

Please let me know how you perform bandwidth management:

  • Is WAN capacity management part of your standard process?
  • What tools do you use?
  • What are your biggest challenges in managing bandwidth?

Also, please take a look at Visual TruView from Fluke Networks. That solution can help you with your network capacity management chores, plus it can help you understand whether network congestion issues are indeed causing application performance issues.

Don’t throw bandwidth at the problem. Make informed decisions with the right data.

Review Roundup: Fluke Networks OptiView XG

Today’s Review Roundup zooms in on OptiView XG by Fluke Networks. With dozens of network troubleshooting and monitoring solutions available on the market and listed on IT Central Station, it’s difficult to determine which solution is best for your needs. We’ll look at what some of our real users have to say about OptiView XG and how they’ve implemented it to fit their needs. FlukeNetworks

  • Aaron Kostyu who is Director of IT at a local government says “We have been using the OptiView XG to both monitor the network, and to take into the field when a deeper inspection of a specific component is needed. Its combination of features, easy-to-understand insight tools and reporting capabilities has made it an indispensable solution for the team.” Read his complete review here.
  • Tommy Pruitt who is Vice President at a company with 1-500 employees says “Prior to OptiView XG, we used a variety of tools and packet sniffers, such as Wireshark, to gather information. The manual correlation of data was time consuming and required highly skilled technical engineers. Now, we have one solution that automates all data gathering, presents that information in graphical format, and allows the team to drill down into more detail instantly.” Read his complete review here.
  • Trent Spencer who is a network manager at a local government says “The OptiView XG is always our starting point. It helps collaboration, gives the insights we need to make a case for upgrades or plan for deployments, allows us to test new implementations in real time, and quickly troubleshoot and fix problems as they arise. We look to this device first so we never waste time or money.” Read his complete review here.

Which network troubleshooting and monitoring solutions have you used? Share your experiences with the professional IT community! If you haven’t already, sign up with IT Central Station, browse reviews, follow your favorite products, or write a review of your own!

Good Tidings—Congratulations to The Top Reviewers of 2013

Thanks to all contributors for a solid year of review building and relationship building.Contributors Thank You

Top contributors have been recognized, vendors are joining—and best of all—the community has become the leading source for real reviews from real users!

A special thanks to the following IT Central Station Top Reviewers of 2013.

 Top Reviewers of 2013
# 1 Fabrizio Volpe
Review of Lync Server 
# 2 Henry
Review of FAS Series
# 3 Larry D.
Review of Compuware 
# 4 Lee Eckersley
Review of Sisense Prism
# 5 jfuhrman
Review of SAP BusinessObjects
# 6 David Varnum
Review of Fluke Networks
# 7 Alex Kriegel
Review of HP ALM
# 8 Martin Butler
Review of Cognos

For more information about becoming a contributor, see Become a Contributor.

For more information about IT Central Station, see About IT Central Station.

Review Roundup: Fluke Networks Visual TruView

Today’s Review Roundup focuses on network monitoring reviews of Fluke Networks Visual TruView. There are so many solutions on the market and it’s hard to know which is best for your organization. Today we’ll look at what several real users have posted about Visual TruView as a network monitoring solution. Here are a few highlights:

  • David Varnum who is Manager of Engineering at a retailer says “There are only two solutions I keep up and running at all times, and Visual TruView is FlukeNetworksone of them. It gives me complete visibility into the application layer and when problems emerge, I can identify the source and work to fix it before it has an impact on the business.” Read his complete review here.
  • Dermot Tobin who is Senior Project Manager at a local government says “Before deploying the TruView, performance monitoring was fairly manual….With TruView, we have a much better view of application performance, particularly from the user perspective.” Read his complete review here.
  • reviewer68994a who is VP of Network/Comms/Infra at a financial services firm says “As we bring more of the responsibility for managing our network in-house, VPM’s ability to generate utilization reports is extremely valuable. In some cases, VPM can create reports that third-party vendors cannot. And with a small team – we have just 4 people managing the network across more than 100 locations – the ability to remotely identify and diagnose problems saves on time and travel costs.” Read his complete review here.

Click here to read more Network Monitoring Software reviews on IT Central Station. If you haven’t already, sign up with IT Central Station, browse reviews, follow your favorite products, or write a review of your own!