We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Server Administrator at a logistics company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Provided us with pretty good savings on the front-end, helping us to correctly size VMs that were over-provisioned
Pros and Cons
  • "It also brings up a list of machines and if something is under-provisioned and needs more compute power it will tell you, 'This server needs more compute power, and we suggest you raise it up to this level.' It will even automatically do it for you. In Azure, you don't have to actually go into the cloud provider to resize. You can just say, 'Apply these resizes,' and Turbonomic uses some back-end APIs to make the changes for you."
  • "There is room for improvement [with] upgrades. We have deployed the newer version, version 8 of Turbonomic. The problem is that there is no way to upgrade between major Turbonomic versions. You can upgrade minor versions without a problem, but when you go from version 6 to version 7, or version 7 to version 8, you basically have to deploy it new and let it start gathering data again. That is a problem because all of the data, all of the savings calculations that had been done on the old version, are gone. There's no way to keep track of your lifetime savings across versions."

What is our primary use case?

The primary reason we initially got it was to help us to right-size all of our VMs, to make sure that they were the appropriate size for the amount that they were being used. That was the biggest push to get this, and we implemented it. 

We have also discovered that Turbonomic can automatically suspend virtual machines that were on a schedule. For example, in the afternoons and the evenings when a VM wasn't going to be used, it could just be shut down, so that we wouldn't be charged eight to 10 hours of compute time, per machine, that wasn't going to be used at all during that time. That's been pretty useful. 

We're also using it to help us determine the reserved instances that we need. We haven't purchased the reserved instances yet but we're using Turbonomic's suggested reserved instance purchasing algorithms to assist us in finding the right balance for the number of RIs that we want to purchase.

How has it helped my organization?

It has provided us with a pretty good deal of savings on the front-end, helping us to correctly size VMs that were over-provisioned. We were paying a lot for VMs that really didn't need to be as big as they were. There has been a pretty drastic decrease in compute and cloud spends, due to either making the changes suggested by Turbonomic, or letting Turbonomic make the changes. That, coupled with using the suspend functionality to suspend machines that are not being used, pulled down our cloud spend a good bit.

The solution also provides a proactive approach to avoiding performance degradation. When you check in daily, it does evaluations on where your VMs and your infrastructure stand on that day. As a VM starts becoming more utilized, it will let you know to start planning on upgrading the machine because it's starting to show some extra usage that may grow beyond its capacity.

What is most valuable?

The right-sizing is the most valuable feature. It constantly lets you know if a machine is being over-utilized or under-utilized, so that you can make it the appropriate size for what you need it for.

It also brings up a list of machines and if something is under-provisioned and needs more compute power it will tell you, "This server needs more compute power, and we suggest you raise it up to this level." It will even automatically do it for you. In Azure, you don't have to actually go into the cloud provider to resize. You can just say, "Apply these resizes," and Turbonomic uses some back-end APIs to make the changes for you.

What needs improvement?

The way they evaluate reserved instances could use some polishing. The people that make decisions on what to buy are a bit confused by how it's laid out. I don't know if that's the fault of Turbonomic, or if that's just the complexity of reserved instances that Microsoft has created. It's not really that confusing for me, but for some people it's a little bit confusing. Trying to explain it to them is a bit tricky as well. We get to a point of impasse where we just accept that they don't really fully understand it, and that I can't fully explain it either. It would help if Turbonomic could simplify it or clarify it, and help non-technical people to understand what's going on and how the reserve instances are being calculated and what they apply to.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using Turbonomic for about two-and-a-half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is good. We've never had any issues with the server running and doing what it's supposed to do. It's never crashed. I've never had an issue bringing up the user interface. Nothing has ever caused any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I think it would scale very well. Our size is in the medium range, but based on the way I see it working, I don't think it matters what size your cloud infrastructure would be. I think it would handle it very well.

In our company, Turbonomic is monitoring pretty much all of our machines in the Azure cloud. If they're in AWS, those are not managed. That's a separate side of the house and they don't want to have their stuff managed by Turbonomic. But we use it to manage everything from size to suspending, for all of our Azure-based machines.

As we move forward, we'll be using it more. We're going to look into using the suspension feature to suspend more VM. As we start getting comfortable with reserved instances, we'll probably use it to help us gauge how many reserved instances we need to buy.

How are customer service and technical support?

I had to use their technical support when I set up the suspensions process. They were good. They did a good job. They got back with me fairly quickly and they were able to walk me through the process of how to configure it. They took the time to explain it very well. They even walked me through the process to make sure I understood how it works. As simple as a suspend of a VM might seem to be, initially, when you look at how it works in Turbonomic, it's not super-simple.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We didn't have a solution in place at all.

How was the initial setup?

I was working for the company when they implemented Turbonomic but I wasn't part of the project that implemented it. I have since taken over one of the primary roles in utilizing it and we've deployed an updated version of it. I have a co-manager who uses it as well, on the same level as me. We back each other up on it.

That's something where there is room for improvement: upgrades. We have deployed the newer version, version 8 of Turbonomic. The problem is that there is no way to upgrade between major Turbonomic versions. You can upgrade minor versions without a problem, but when you go from version 6 to version 7, or version 7 to version 8, you basically have to deploy it new and let it start gathering data again. That is a problem because all of the data, all of the savings calculations that had been done on the old version, are gone. There's no way to keep track of your lifetime savings across versions.

Maybe there's a way that they can go and retrieve those specific bits of data, but so far I haven't seen how that happens. I would like to see them make major version upgrades work, first of all, because you can't currently upgrade to a major version. You have to deploy it to a new server. But at the very least, if we have to deploy it to a new server, give us a way to pull in that lifetime savings information, and track the information they've built up. We've had the same one for almost two years and it would be nice to keep all that tracking information for future reference.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive. 

It would be great if the price of the solution would scale with the amount of money that you are saving in the cloud. If the solution itself cost, say, $300,000 over the course of three years, it should be saving you $750,000 in cloud spend. They should make it worth it. At this point, I don't think there's any built-in tool to show you if the price that you're paying for Turbonomic is worth the cost savings that you're getting from it.

Or maybe the licensing and pricing could be done in tiers. If you had 100 virtual machines in the cloud, they would sell you licensing for 100 machines, and then 500, and then 1000. It would help if they did it in tiers so that you're not paying a massive amount of money for Turbonomic as a whole, and not saving as much as you were hoping.

What other advice do I have?

I don't think Turbonomic provides you with a single platform that manages the full application stack. It manages a lot of the infrastructure stuff, Layer 1 through Layer 3 of the OSI model. It's mostly focused on infrastructure and making sure your infrastructure isn't over-provisioned. I wouldn't say it could all the way through the application.

Optimizing application performance on a continuous process is beyond the scope of a human to be able to do on a consistent basis. In other words, if you have 20 virtual machines, it's reasonable that a human could watch the utilization and determine size changes as needed, but if you're getting into hundreds of virtual machines, it becomes a task that's beyond the ability of a person to do by himself. It's a question of scale. As you get into hundreds of VMs, it becomes too tedious to keep track of and it becomes very time-consuming as well. Having said that, we don't use Turbonomic for that. We don't use it to manage any applications. We only use it to manage virtual machines.

We have only just started using containers. We haven't gotten into letting Turbonomic manage those containers. That's the only other thing that we would probably use it for at this point: managing the containerization. We use it right now for just cloud. We're pretty solid on on-prem because we've been doing a lot of migration of our on-prem stuff to the cloud. So we actually have a lot of compute resources available on-prem and we're not really worried about running into any resource issues.

Before Turbonomic, there was no person or group of people managing those aspects of our environment that it manages for us, but if there had been then, obviously, it would have reflected time savings at this point.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Ervis Charles
Principal Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20Leaderboard
Identifies configuration issues so it doesn't cost money to buy resources which are not needed
Pros and Cons
  • "We have a system where our developers automate machine builds, and that is constantly running out of resources. Turbonomic helps us with that, so I don't have to keep buying hardware. The developers always say, "They don't have enough. They don't have enough. They don't have enough," when they just configured it improperly. Therefore, Turbonomic helps us identify configuration issues on their side so it doesn't cost me money on the other end to buy resources that I don't really need."
  • "They could add a few more reports. They could also be a bit more granular. While they have reports, sometimes it is hard to figure out what you are looking for just by looking at the date."

What is our primary use case?

It has a feature called "right-sizing". This makes sure that our virtual machines are sized properly so we don't have a lot of wasted resources, either too large or too small. This way, our machines function much better than they should.

How has it helped my organization?

We have a system where our developers automate machine builds, and that is constantly running out of resources. Turbonomic helps us with that, so I don't have to keep buying hardware. The developers always say, "They don't have enough. They don't have enough. They don't have enough," when they just configured it improperly. Therefore, Turbonomic helps us identify configuration issues on their side so it doesn't cost me money on the other end to buy resources that I don't really need.

The solution handles some of our applications and cloud as well as giving us some insight into the storage aspect. While we have other tools, Turbonomic does give me insight onto my storage utilization as well. That part helps us with the virtualization stack. Turbonomic understands the resource relationships at each of these layers and the risks to performance for each of them, which helps us be a little more at the front of the game, giving us a little more insights to be more ahead of what we need to do.

To an extent, the solution helps manage our business-critical applications by understanding the underlying supply chain of resources. Some of our business-critical apps are our large virtualization stacks, and that is what our developers develop on. These keep our development environment running optimally so they can continue to develop without having to wait for resources.

It does suggest actions. It let us know ahead of time: 

  • If we need to increase hardware.
  • If we're okay.
  • If we need to decrease hardware.
  • What to expect during peak season.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the right-sizing. For my maintenance weekend, I can schedule it to right-size a subset of VMs every month. That works perfectly for me. It goes out on its own and tells me which machines need to be changed, then it will perform that function. I don't have to do any manual intervention. It runs its own report in the background. 

Turbonomic tells me ahead of time to prevent resource starvation. Going into the console, it tells me whether actions can be taken, saying, "Do you want to do these now?" Then, I can push a button and Turbonomic will do them. Or, I could simulate a load by saying, "Well, I'm going to add this, what will happen?" It will then tell me what will happen, so I can know ahead of time.

It optimizes application performance as a continuous process that is beyond human scale.

The solution helps us with troubleshooting issues in certain virtual environments. It gives you good information so you can drill down to different levels. You can get information to help you troubleshoot issues that you are seeing, whether it be storage-related or virtual machine-related.

What needs improvement?

They could add a few more reports. They could also be a bit more granular. While they have reports, sometimes it is hard to figure out what you are looking for just by looking at the date.

They could update the look of the console.

There are some manual issues. When it comes to forecasting dollar amounts, you have to put in all these inputs. Some of the questions they ask are a little outside of the realm that any engineer should be putting in. If they could streamline that, the solution would be much better.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using it for about two and a half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is very stable. I don't think it has ever gone down unless it was something that we did. If you have a good system that is sized properly, then it works well.

The solution doesn't require any maintenance on our side.

We schedule for change windows because a lot of the times the recommended changes will require a restart. So, we have to do them when they don't affect anybody. For a lot of what we are using Turbonomic, it will suggest actions that require restarts, shutdowns, etc. Those need to be done off-hours.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It scales well. If you need to scale up, you just purchase more licenses.

We have 6,500 endpoints, which are 95 percent virtual and five percent cloud.

We have our operations team who use it sometimes. Operations gets the first call about performance improvements. If someone calls or opens a ticket with them, and says, "Oh, I need more resources," then they will log onto Turbonomic and see if a machine is underperforming for whatever reason. 

My team is managing the resources for right-sizing and forecasting,

How are customer service and technical support?

We learned that all we have to do is engage the Turbonomic team, and they will help us get anything that we need done. They will make feature improvements if we request them. They are proactive when working with us.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Previously, we used something out-of-the-box or homegrown, in-house scripts.

How was the initial setup?

Upgrading the solution is straightforward. It is pretty easy.

When we are notified of an upgrade, feature pack, or patch, it is like a two or three step function to get to the next level. It is very non-intrusive and easy. It takes 35 to 40 minutes to upgrade or apply a patch, and the solution doesn't go down.

What was our ROI?

We keep it because we see ROI. For example, I had an issue recently, which was big, and Turbo helped me solve that problem. If we did not have this solution, it would have been a much bigger issue.

It has reduced our IT-related CapEx and OpEx, because you have a lot of people who complain that they need this and that. Those would be capital expenditures if we're buying more machines, and we really don't need them. So, we can just right-size a VM or an environment, and that pays for the capital and operational expenditures. The automation helps a lot with this as well. This has reduced our expenditures around 10 percent because I haven't bought anything in a while. I haven't needed to buy anything, except for replacements.

It has saved time. Without this application, I would have to do everything myself. That would take at least eight hours a month, because the right-sizing takes a couple hours, then I would have to prepare it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We tested Turbonomic against VMware vROps. Both solutions will tell you, "Oh, you should do this or that. This is an issue. You can do this." However, at the time that we tested vROps, it was an older version. They weren't offering the ability to schedule right-sizing and automating it, where Turbonomic does. vROps would just alert you, so you would have to do the right-sizing yourself. Therefore, vROps would have been a bit more manual with more operational needs.

What other advice do I have?

I target it at the cloud to get a baseline against other tools, e.g., which ones we are going to go with long-term. Turbonomic, in our cloud, points towards development environments, not production environments.

We are not really application-specific. However, it does work well with the monitoring and ensuring performance. I can identify a performance issue just by opening the dashboard, even if I am not necessarily looking for one.

I would give it an eight (out of 10). It is a really good product.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Learn what your peers think about Turbonomic. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2022.
564,643 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Advisory System Engineer at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Helps us meet SLAs by making sure that machines have the resources needed to function properly
Pros and Cons
  • "The automated memory balancing, where it looks at whether it's being used in the most efficient way and adds or takes away memory, is the best part. If it didn't do that, it would be something that I would have to do. We have too many machines for one person to do that. The automation helps me in that it is done in a really efficient way and a balanced way because of the policies. It really helps."
  • "The planning and costing areas could be a little bit more detailed. When you have more than 2,000 machines, the reports don't work properly. They need to fix it so that the reports work when you use that many virtual machines."

What is our primary use case?

We're using it for placement automation. Turbonomic will look at the virtual machines that are on different hosts and it will say, "Hey, three are too many machines on this host. And this host doesn't have a lot of machines on it." It will place the virtual machines in a balanced way on different hosts and try to balance the hosts out as best it can.

We're also using it for CPU and RAM addition and automation: Do we need to add more memory or take away memory in the environment or look at a machine to see if it is being used to the best capacity?

We also use Turbonomic for planning. It takes a look at our environment and we can make plans, like if we want to put some of our environment into a cloud-based system, like Azure, it will tell us our costing.

We use it for about 4,000 machines.

How has it helped my organization?

Performance is something that should constantly be monitored and constantly be worked on. Turbonomic is doing that in the background, without me having to manually do it. It's a great help. It's monitoring something that I just physically couldn't do all by myself because the environment is too large. It's looking at the resources in any environment and taking snapshots of where things are. At the right time, it's adding or taking away resources, and that's helping make the environment more efficient.

Planning is another way it really helps because it gives us an idea of the cost to move. We wanted to move everything to the cloud. It helps us to figure out what it would look like and how Turbonomic could even help, if we want to do that. But more importantly, it gives us an idea of how much it would cost. We get a round figure of the cost involved.

It handles virtualization, cloud, on-premise, and storage for us. We're moving towards it handling applications. The solution understands the resource relationships at each of these layers and the risks to performance for each. It understands them and makes adjustments based on what's needed. It also lets us know, if we need to make some adjustments, where they are. It definitely does a good job with that. It's not only knowing where to put things, but it's doing it for us.

We use it for implementing scheduling of actions for change windows. We do that based on our service-level agreements. We have to have a certain level of uptime. We do things because of our change process and the way that we have systems going. It's best for us to do it at a scheduled time, when everybody knows that the system will be going through some type of change.

It helps us meet SLAs by making sure that the machine has the resources it needs to function properly. Also, when it does make changes, it does it during the SLA windows.

We also use Turbonomic to show application metrics and estimate the impact of taking a suggested action. We have it doing that based on things in clusters. We'll set something up in the cluster and then have it see if that cluster is being utilized to its fullest or if it's being over-utilized. It gives us visibility.

In addition, it helps optimize cloud operations and reduce our cloud costs. We're putting things on a certain type of storage and moving things to best fit our environment and give us the best cost for our environment. It will also give us an idea, before we put it there, of what the cost will be before we move it to Azure.

It saves me a lot of time because I don't have to do things to monitor the environment to see what machines need RAM or memory or need CPU taken away or added. It can do that for me. I would estimate it saves me 20 hours per month.

What is most valuable?

The automated memory balancing, where it looks at whether it's being used in the most efficient way and adds or takes away memory, is the best part. If it didn't do that, it would be something that I would have to do. We have too many machines for one person to do that. The automation helps me in that it is done in a really efficient way and a balanced way because of the policies. It really helps.

It provides specific actions that prevent resource starvation. If a machine needs more resources, it will use the automation policies to add resources so that machines get the resources that they need. And if they don't need them anymore, it will take them away.

It provides everything in one screen, one area. I'm able to see not only the planning, and not just the stuff that's on-premise, but things that are in the cloud. I can even narrow down to different applications. It does a lot in one pane. That was really important because we didn't have to go to three or four different products to find what Turbonomic had in one product. It really helps that Turbonomic is showing you efficiencies and the best way to keep things in the environment working properly, instead of me, or even me and co-worker, trying to do it. We just know that it's handling it better.

You can monitor an application and all the hosts and virtual machines that are connected to the application and it will give you an idea of how many resources it is using and what it is using. It also lets you know if it's over-utilized or under-utilized. It helps us to know if we're in an area where a machine might not perform the way we are expecting it to, because of the resources that it has or the resources it needs to have.

What needs improvement?

The planning and costing areas could be a little bit more detailed. When you have more than 2,000 machines, the reports don't work properly. They need to fix it so that the reports work when you use that many virtual machines.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using Turbonomic for about one year.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's very stable and works the way that it should.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It seems scalable, although I haven't scaled it up or taken anything away yet. We plan to use more storage. We're not using as much storage as we would like.

How are customer service and technical support?

The support has been really good. The people that I've been working with have been really helpful. It's been working.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used vRA from VMware. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup of Turbonomic was straightforward. I worked with somebody from Turbonomic and we got an understanding of the environment and we worked together to get it installed and to get the placement working first. After the placement, we worked on changing and automating the addition of CPUs and RAM.

What other advice do I have?

Something we need to do is make the solution aware of business-critical applications by understanding the underlying supply chain of resources. We need to make it aware of what's critical. We do that by setting up clusters and then setting certain policies on what is in each cluster. We separate critical things through clusters.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Linley Ali
Head of Enterprise Wide Technical Architecture / Enterprise Technology Specialist at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 20Leaderboard
Provides us a map of resource utilization as part of its recommendation
Pros and Cons
  • "We like that Turbonomic shows application metrics and estimates the impact of taking a suggested action. It provides us a map of resource utilization as part of its recommendation. We evaluate and compare that to what we think would be appropriate from a human perspective to that what Turbonomic is doing, then take the best action going forward."
  • "After running this solution in production for a year, we may want a more granular approach to how we utilize the product because we are planning to use some of its metrics to feed into our financial system."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use case is to optimize our environment. We will take our OpenShift environment and use Turbonomic to monitor the size of the pods, then determine where to place the pods as well. We will make recommendations from that perspective. Turbonomic is an excellent product as far as we are concerned for managing the pod sizes and determining the best sizing for those pods. Right now, our development staff prefer to maximize the size of their pods and requests in terms of memory and CPU, and that causes us to potentially run out of resources.

We are managing the pods, their performance, and the utilization. It is more of a pod deployment model. Right now, we are monitoring the whole application as well as its allocation of resources, CPU, memory, etc. So, the application will be optimized and Turbonomic will help us optimize that sizing, because that is a problem right now.

We will be deploying this solution across all our OpenShift platforms to manage our existing environment.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable features have been the resizing, then the allocation of resources and where to run the pods. Those have been a huge success for us. It is a self-funding initiative in that regard.

Turbonomic provides specific actions that prevent resource starvation. Potentially running out of resources is a possibility. Now, we have an overallocation of resources. However, each time we use the resources, we incur additional costs from a licensing perspective. Turbonomic allows us to maximize our resources before we have to utilize additional resources. 

We like that Turbonomic shows application metrics and estimates the impact of taking a suggested action. It provides us a map of resource utilization as part of its recommendation. We evaluate and compare that to what we think would be appropriate from a human perspective to what Turbonomic is doing, then take the best action going forward. So far, we like exactly what we see from the product. It is very powerful.

What needs improvement?

After running this solution in production for a year, we may want a more granular approach to how we utilize the product because we are planning to use some of its metrics to feed into our financial system.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been currently using the product in our OpenShift environment for about six months. We did a PoC starting last Fall. We are now in the process of implementing it in production.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

So far, the stability has been good. There is always room for improvement, but so far we have had no complaints from our team in regards to the product and how it operates in the OpenShift environment.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is outstanding. We have had a great relationship with the Turbonomic folks from the beginning. They have given us some excellent resources. Their support is five-stars.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We did not use another product. We are not replacing anything. We were familiar with the Turbonomic product in the context of our VMware environment. We thought it was the ideal product. Because of the way it calculates things, we also thought it was the right approach going forward. So, we went directly to choosing Turbonomic.

How was the initial setup?

Our admins who deployed the technology said it was fairly straightforward. Because Turbonomic in OpenShift runs as a pod, it is fairly straightforward from a deployment model.

It is a relatively easy product to implement. If you're familiar with OpenShift, my OpenShift admins had no problems deploying it and working with the Turbonomic team. Their support has been great.

Phase one in deployment is to understand what actions would be from Turbonomic regarding resizing, then take actions based on those recommendations. After we are satisfied with what Turbonomic is doing, we will let Turbonomic take automated actions, which is phase two. We will be building a better trust relationship between our app and operations teams, when we allow Turbonomic to automatically deploy and take actions.

We like that Turbonomic provides a proactive approach to avoiding performance degradation. In phase one, we will do a manual evaluation of the recommendations. Then, in phase two, we plan to have Turbo fully automated and take actions based on what it thinks the best resource allocation model is.

We have two separate OpenShift clusters. We will be deploying one environment with more than 100 nodes and the other one with more than 50 nodes.

What about the implementation team?

Working with Turbonomic consultants, the deployment was probably a couple of days. That was more to familiarize ourselves with the environment, what the commands were, etc. It was not a function of the complexity of the tool.

We don't have many people working on the product. We have about three people going through the testing and PoC environment right now and setting it up for deployment in our dev stage, and then finally in our production environment. There are about three individuals working on that. 

Because the product is self-managing in many ways and runs the way that it does, i.e., it runs as an application inside of OpenShift, I would probably dedicate half a resource from the OpenShift side to managing Turbonomic over the long-term.

What was our ROI?

While we are in the process of deploying now, we did a calculation and think that we definitely will be showing value and savings. Our expected ROI is 2:1. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The product is fairly priced right now. Given its capabilities, it is excellently priced. We think that the product will become self-funding because we will be able to maximize our resources, which will help us from a capacity perspective. That should save us money in the long run.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I did some research on other products out there, but nothing met what I required from. Some of the products were cloud-only solutions, and that wasn't going to work for us because we are an all on-prem environment. However, we still think that the model that Turbonomic uses to make us determinations (its secret sauce) is actually the best thing out there.

What other advice do I have?

You need to know OpenShift well to utilize the product. That is probably my biggest piece of advice. The more you know OpenShift, the better off you are when it comes to the product. The product can be self-driving in many ways.

We came in with a very specific set of goals, and Turbonomic has been able to meet those goals. We have had no real roadblocks so far

Our only context for productionizing is Turbonomic for containerized environments in OpenShift. We have taken a look at using Turbonomic for VM management, but that is not part of our initial work.

We are not running any cloud activities right now.

I would rate them as a nine out of 10. There is always room for improvement. For example, if they lower the cost, I could get a 3:1 ROI.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
Ryan Mahon
Team Lead, Systems Engineering at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Enables us to reduce our ESX cluster size and save money on our maintenance and license renewals
Pros and Cons
  • "With Turbonomic, we were able to reduce our ESX cluster size and save money on our maintenance and license renewals. It saved us around $75,000 per year but it's a one-time reduction in VMware licensing. We don't renew the support. The ongoing savings is probably $50,000 to $75,000 a year, but there was a one-time of $200,000 plus."
  • "The GUI and policy creation have room for improvement. There should be a better view of some of the numbers that are provided and easier to access. And policy creation should have it easier to identify groups."

What is our primary use case?

We do vMotion through VMware. We let Turbonomic control our vMotion. We do server rightsizing and capacity management with it.

How has it helped my organization?

With Turbonomic, we were able to reduce our ESX cluster size and save money on our maintenance and license renewals. It saved us around $75,000 per year but it's a one-time reduction in VMware licensing. We don't renew the support. The ongoing savings is probably $50,000 to $75,000 a year, but there was a one-time of $200,000 plus.

It also saved human resource time and the cost involved in monitoring and optimizing our state by 25%.

What is most valuable?

Rightsizing is the most valuable feature because it helps with our capacity management and server density so that we are always optimized. 

Turbonomic provides specific actions that prevent resource starvation. It'll tell us if a server is overpowered or over-provisioned so that we can recover resources. And on the same note, it'll tell us if a server is under-provisioned and we need to add resources to it to help the performance.

It also provides us with a single platform that manages the full application stack. This was the secondary reason we went with Turbonomic. The primary reason was for the server optimization.

In my organization, optimizing application performance is a continuous process that is beyond the human scale. We're always looking to better optimize the environment.

We use Turbonomic's automation mode to continuously assure application performance by having the software manage resources in real-time for sizing-up. Sizing down is a manual process.

Turbonomic handles on-prem, virtualization, and storage. Turbonomic understands the resource relationships at each of these layers and the risks to performance for each. As far as we can tell, they are risk-averse. So they put controls in so that you don't cause outages. It makes the operations more secure.

We do a piece of automation in real-time, scheduling them for change windows, or manual execution for implementing Turbonomic actions. The vMotions are automation, the rightsize up is done automatically, and the rightsize down is during change windows.

We do the automation piece so that it is continuously rightsizing how many VMs are on a host for best performance, same with increasing resources on a VM to make sure application performance is where it should be. And then we do change control for the rightsize down because it requires a reboot.

The fact that Turbonomic shows application metrics and estimates the impact of taking a suggested action gives us a window into seeing what will happen if we do make the change. So it provides better visibility.

Turbonomic provides a proactive approach to avoiding performance degradation. That's what rightsizing does. It continuously optimizes so there are fewer application performance issues.

We have seen a 20% reduction in tickets opened for application issues.

Using Turbonomic does it all-in-one versus the approach of using monitoring and threshold to assure application performance. Sometimes your monitoring tool does not do the optimization as well.

What needs improvement?

The GUI and policy creation have room for improvement. There should be a better view of some of the numbers that are provided and easier to access. And policy creation should have it easier to identify groups.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Turbonomic for four years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have not had any issues, it's pretty stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We've been able to add resources or things for it to look at without any issues so far. So there haven't been any scalability issues.

We are monitoring 3,000 workloads with Turbonomic.

There are two systems engineers who use it. In terms of maintenance, it only requires software updates. 

We may do some more integration with other applications like AppDynamics, but the platform itself, we've integrated it completely.

How are customer service and technical support?

We've had great success with their support. They have good response times and willingness to engage.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. It's point and click. You install the VM and point it to your environment and it starts working.

The initial deployment took a couple of hours. 

What was our ROI?

We have seen ROI in cost reductions and savings. That directly applies to the cost we pay for Turbonomic licensing.

Our ROI is positive when it comes to the assurance of application performance in your company. It's a benefit for us.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Pricing is pretty straightforward. We haven't seen any major increases in it. It's a flexible model.

There aren't additional costs to the standard license. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We also looked at VMware vRealize. The big difference between vRealize and Turbonomic is integration. It's easier to integrate Turbonomic than it is vRealize. There are more components to install.

What other advice do I have?

It's a worthwhile investment, at least to get it, get some sort of trial installed to see because it'll give you recommendations as to what it can do and it'll allow you to determine if it will help your environment or not.

There were many things that could be optimized in our environment that we did not know about before.

I would rate Turbonomic an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
Operations Engineer at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Provides reporting functionality, resource metrics, and the ability to automate and do some balancing
Pros and Cons
  • "I have the ability to automate things similar to the Orchestrator stuff. I do have the ability to have it do some balancing, and if it sees some different performance metrics that I've set not being met, it'll actually move some of my virtual machines from, let's say, one host to another. It is sort of an automation tool that helps me. Basically, I specify the metric, and if I get a certain host or something being over-utilized, it'll automatically move the virtual machines around for me. It basically has to snap into my vCenter and then it can make adjustments and move my virtual machines around. It also has some very nice reporting tools built around virtual machines. It tells you how much storage, memory, or CPU is being used monthly, and then it gives you a very nice way to be able to send out billing structure to your end users who use servers within your environment."
  • "It sometimes does get false positives. Sometimes, it'll move something when it really wasn't a performance metric. I've seen it do that, but it's pretty much an automated tool for performance. We've only got about 500 virtual machines, so lots of times, I'm able to manage it physically, but it's definitely a nice tool for a larger enterprise that might be managing 2,000 or 3,000 virtual machines."

What is our primary use case?

I'm using this solution to get performance stats outside of my vCenter environment.

What is most valuable?

I have the ability to automate things similar to the Orchestrator stuff. I do have the ability to have it do some balancing, and if it sees some different performance metrics that I've set not being met, it'll actually move some of my virtual machines from, let's say, one host to another. It is sort of an automation tool that helps me. Basically, I specify the metric, and if I get a certain host or something being over-utilized, it'll automatically move the virtual machines around for me. It basically has to snap into my vCenter and then it can make adjustments and move my virtual machines around.

It also has some very nice reporting tools built around virtual machines. It tells you how much storage, memory, or CPU is being used monthly, and then it gives you a very nice way to be able to send out billing structure to your end users who use servers within your environment.

What needs improvement?

It sometimes does get false positives. Sometimes, it'll move something when it really wasn't a performance metric. I've seen it do that, but it's pretty much an automated tool for performance. We've only got about 500 virtual machines, so lots of times, I'm able to manage it physically, but it's definitely a nice tool for a larger enterprise that might be managing 2,000 or 3,000 virtual machines.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using Turbonomic for about three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I haven't had a problem yet with an update. I've updated it three or four times over the last two years, and the machine has been stable. I haven't had any crashes. It has been doing as what's expected, and upgrades are pretty straightforward.

They do the upgrades quarterly, but I really haven't seen any bugs out of it that I would report back in. They're pretty sufficient at doing their beta testing before they release a major release. I usually wait about a month until they've released a major release.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It probably does have a lot of scalability. I'm a pretty small shop compared to some of the users who use this product, but I'm sure it scales out. From what I can tell, no matter how much I grew, it would still scale to my environment. Now, I can't speak about somebody who has 10,000 virtual machines out on the cloud and things of that nature, but it does allow me to facilitate cloud virtual machines outside of my environment if I had any.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've had to deal with them probably mid-summer just with a couple of questions, and they were very responsive. I have no issues with them. I usually get a call back for assistance within an hour.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We really didn't have another product. We were licensed for vRealize, but we never actually spun it up, and then we saw Turbonomic. Our big reason for going for it was a lot of reporting functionality and the resource metrics that I can pull back to be able to bill customers. vRealize and Orchestrator are okay, but they don't have a lot of billing functionality in them to create reports and send automatically to end users or to do things of that nature. The management feature was nice, but the biggest reason for purchasing it was its ability to run reports and run billing outside of our VMware environment.

How was the initial setup?

It was very straightforward. It was basically just an OVA appliance that I brought up, licensed, and then gave it permission to be able to talk to my vCenter. Boom, everything was out there and running. You could actually write custom reports in it and do things of that nature. Its setup was very easy.

What about the implementation team?

There are only a couple of us who actually handle the updates. It is mostly used by my network administrators. There are about ten of us who actually use the tool to make adjustments in our VMware environment. It's pretty much just my VMware administrators who utilize the tool.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It was an annual buy-in. You basically purchase it based on your host type stuff. The buy-in was about 20K, and the annual maintenance is about $3,000 a year.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend this product to others depending on what their need is and the size of their environment. I like what I've seen at this point, but it might not be the perfect fit for certain environments, but I would recommend it.

They constantly have quarterly webinars for their new releases, new functionality, and some of the new things they're doing. They do four major upgrades per year, but I probably use the tool to about 30% of its capacity. It probably has a lot more whistles and bells that I haven't even taken advantage of.

I would rate Turbonomic an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
reviewer1550322
User at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
User
Good support, has improved our efficiency, and has a helpful planning tool
Pros and Cons
  • "The automation and orchestration components are definitely the best part, as you can tell it what it can do and when, and just let it be."
  • "Some features are only available via changes to the deployment YAML, and it would be better to have them in the UI."

What is our primary use case?

We looked to this product to help us to right-size our virtual machines and containers. Most people who request virtual machines tend to request more resources than they need, and most of the time it's hard to prove that they don't.

Our environment is entirely on-premises. We have virtual machines and Kubernetes running on some of those VMs. We also have plans to go to the cloud with some workloads in the future, so it's good to have this tool to help get the sizing just right when the time comes to pull the plug.

How has it helped my organization?

Turbonomic has been helping us use our resources more efficiently, the challenge we currently face internally is getting people to allow the servers to be turned off to make the changes recommended.

I also like the planning tool, which is helpful to make sure we have enough capacity for failing over one datacenter to the other in case of disaster, while still maximizing what we already have and helping to keep us from making host purchases we don't need yet. It's nice not having to make all those calculations on my own.

What is most valuable?

At the moment, I have only really had the opportunity to manage virtual machines with it.

We're starting to let it look at our Kubernetes workloads as well.

The automation and orchestration components are definitely the best part, as you can tell it what it can do and when, and just let it be. However, I haven't reached that point yet. That is the plan for the future though.

I really like the planning tool so I can make sure we have enough resources for upcoming projects that require servers, while still having enough resources for our disaster recovery failover needs.

What needs improvement?

The reporting feature could be made a little more seamless with the rest of the tool. It would be nice to be able to share and print the reports a little more easily.

Some features are only available via changes to the deployment YAML, and it would be better to have them in the UI.

The upgrade process is a bit tedious, but I know the team is working on that.

The ability to set the scope at the dashboard level and let it flow down to all the widgets you add would be amazing. Having to select the scope per widget is a bit tedious.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Turbonomic for just under a year.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is pretty stable, we have not had issues with that.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Turbonomic seems scalable to me.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is where Turbonomic shines.

Lots of features are still in the works but the company really makes sure you have a lot of attention and support after the sale, which is sometimes hard to get. Most of the time, once a vendor has your money, you never hear from them again. However, I have had a great experience with post-sales support and a lot of hand-holding.

It is really well done on their part to make their customer happy.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We did not use a similar solution prior to this one.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

Deployed was completed in-house.

What was our ROI?

We have no ROI so far.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It's worth the time and money investment if you can afford it.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated VMware vROps before selecting Turbonomic.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Tjeerd Saijoen
CEO at Rufusforyou
Reseller
Top 5Leaderboard
Excellent optimization feature and integrates almost automatically with other products
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution has a good optimization feature."
  • "Additional interfaces would be helpful."

What is our primary use case?

We implemented this solution in our company and we also implement it for our clients. We use it because it connects to monitoring tools over APIs and if you have a monitoring solution, it removes data intelligently. Our aim is to optimize our customers' systems. The solution also offers insight into the financial impact of an event. We are partners with IBM which purchased Turbonomic earlier this year, and we are resellers of Turbonomic. I'm the company CEO/CIO. 

How has it helped my organization?

The help desk analyzes metrics events and Turbonomic tells you exactly what is wrong and how to resolve it. The solution improves the function of the help desk and saves time by making repairs quickly.

What is most valuable?

Optimization is a valuable feature. For example, if I have eASICs running and several VMwares running, it shows me how to optimize the system and get the best out of it. It reduces the cost of the two systems. I like that the solution integrates almost automatically with other products.

What needs improvement?

The solution could be improved by having all interfaces together and I'd really like to see more interfaces. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using this solution for two months. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We haven't had any stability issues, the solution is running well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is fine. We're using the product extensively with deployment of almost 54,000 systems. We receive a lot of alerts from those systems and do a lot of monitoring, so it's used constantly. 

How are customer service and support?

The technical support is now done by IBM.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very straightforward. You execute an application or a script, depending on whether you're running it in Linux or Windows, and then you deploy the containers. It's pretty much one command and then everything is automatic. It took us about 20 minutes. 

What was our ROI?

We already had a good return in the first couple of weeks. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Licensing costs are middle of the road; you need to take into account what the solution delivers to the customer. If it's running automatic remediation then it saves a lot of money for an organization. 

What other advice do I have?

This tool is excellent for a CFO, while other tools are geared more towards a CIO. This tool has a different market. We're currently working in Europe, carrying out implementations in both Italy and Portugal, and we're starting on a new deployment project in Dubai next week. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner & Reseller
Flag as inappropriate