The blurred lines of network monitoring
When it makes sense to pay more for management tools
Clear Choice Tests By Barry Nance, Network World, 02/12/07
Why would a company of any size spend $50,000, $100,000 or more on HP's Network
Node Manager, Alcatel-Lucent's VitalSuite, CA's eHealth or Spectrum, IBM's
(formerly Micromuse's) NetCool, Argent's Guardian or other products if the
entry-level products we tested are so capable? There are a few reasons.
* Sophistication: Their complexity lets the expensive tools monitor networks
more accurately. For instance, you can avoid more false alarms with the
expensive products, because you can set sophisticated thresholds: "Alert me if
Link X's utilization exceeds 5% on Saturdays and Sundays, 20% after 8 p.m.
during the week, 50% during weekdays or 75% at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. on weekdays."
The expensive products are also usually quite good at performing root-cause
*Scalability: The expensive products typically have a distributed, n-tier
architecture that helps them scale upward to handle 100,000 or more network
*Integration: The expensive tools integrate well with third-party software and
even with each other. For instance, both CA's eHealth and Spectrum products
integrate with CA's network documentation tool, netViz.
* Specific device support: Understanding the Babel of languages emitted by a
widely heterogeneous collection of network devices is another fort of the
expensive tools. CA's eHealth, for instance, is an absolute polyglot that ships
with more than 1,000 Management Information Bases.
Copyright, 1994-2008 Network World, Inc.