Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring vs. Zenoss

Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is well suited for any complicated environment where you have apps and servers across multiple clouds and platforms and products. If you have a data centre where all your apps and servers are in one single network, you could probably get away with older solutions. But for any modern, complex, hybrid-cloud microservices environment, Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is a must-have.

Incentivized

Overall I would say that we have been very happy with Zenoss. It has been a great server monitoring tool. There are certain aspects that we would like to expand into, such as Capacity Planning, Network Performance Monitoring, and log analysis. We have coupled Zenoss logs with Splunk for external log management, but would like to start using some of the built-in analysis tools.

• SignalFX handles historical metric aggregation exceptionally well, providing a multifaceted approach to event detection based on anomalies.
• SignalFX's cost is incredibly flexible with their pricing model of DPM (data-point per minute) vs the traditional "per host" model that most monitoring SaaS use.
• SignalFX support is responsive and knowledgeable, very eager to help solve your immediate problems.
• SignalFX integrations is vast and constantly growing, making adoption easy even when multiple different open-source technologies are used in your stack.

Incentivized

• Monitoring Windows, Unix/Linux, Infra apps, storage, virtualization, converge infra etc..
• Integrate with other monitoring tools and receive events for aggregation and correlation
• Integration with ITSM( SNOW) for auto ticket creation

Incentivized

• Better integration with our clients (native mobile clients SDKs will be great).
• A way to easily tag filters and move them across metrics/formula.
• Alert system to easy false [alarm] and hard to configure.
• Be able to have group more dimensions (and have more values on each).

Incentivized

• Hard to troubleshot and fix the issue.
• More development for monitoring storage systems.
• Load balancing on Zenoss instance.

Incentivized

Good: Stable system with low error rate Easy to use for simple use cases Bad: UI is not very clear for complex usage Mobile view (when logged in from phone) is bad No library for .net

Incentivized

I find that learning the interface can take some time. We need a better show-and-tell on how the Teams pages, Dashboard Groups, Dashboards and charts delay. Advance SignalFlow is sometimes hard to build. Some better samples of advanced SignalFlow would be helpful. For example, Splunk SPL has a vast resource of examples.

Incentivized

They’re not for the same purpose but we’re using NewRelic and Honeycomb for monitoring purposes. NewRelic is used for HTTP client monitoring for system related throughput, error, database and external client monitoring. Honeycomb is used to monitor actual HTTP request/response values. Splunk [Infrastructure Monitoring] is used for real-time application related throughout and error monitoring.

Incentivized

• Reduced downtime.
• Caused us to get a lot of spam when we redeployed apps and old instances stopped sending metrics. Muting alerts solves this, but people often forget to do it or do it incorrectly.
• Helped us find historical info about instances/apps.

Incentivized

• Our ROI was excellent, but the company has also implemented other tools that compete with Zenoss.
• Zenoss has a long history of excellence in monitoring and alerting
• Overall observability is easier to manage due to our comfort with the tool set