I just read a press release about a new product, NetBeez, which performs active network monitoring from the user perspective. I suppose it has a narrow fit, but it seems to me that most modern day monitoring applications should be able to handle many of the tasks of this appliance, without requiring a dedicated device and a hardware based deployment plan.
I have been in IT, and specifically in the infrastructure/software monitoring space, since 1993. When I started, monitoring was on basic hardware stats like disk space, CPU utilization and RAM usage on servers. Clients would call me and say, “the network is down,” and I would look at my console and say to myself, “no, it’s not…all my lights are green.” But in fact, there was a problem, I just could not see it.
Then I expanded into monitoring specific services and applications. I could then see inside an Exchange Server, for example, and create an alert if too many messages are stacked up in the outgoing queue. That helped service levels a lot, but I would still get occasional phone calls saying, “the network is down,” when all my lights were green. And, in fact, it did sometimes have a problem I could not detect.
Later, I got into End User Experience Monitoring. This is not for everyone, as it is highly specialized and custom; but done right, it mimics the activities of users on key applications. This almost completely eliminates undetected problems cropping up. To some extent, NetBeez appears to offer that promise, but only at the network layer. I think a 90% equivalent can be accomplished with a software agent and ping. For example, I do that now for about 2,800 VPNs to theater locations across North America. It is easy to deploy, easy to manage, relatively low cost, and it is effective. NetBeez could be a good solution for some, but I don’t like the hardware centricity. It complicates deployment and it is one more piece of hardware to manage.
I learned about network monitoring maturity growth over the years watching our AlvakaNet network monitoring service mature. I saw it at other firms, too. The evolution follows three levels of service level maturity growth:
- Basic hardware/network layer monitoring
- Application level monitoring
- End-user experience monitoring
It takes some time, experience, process development, and technology tools to move up this stack. Don’t discount the requirement for constantly training and retraining your personnel, as well as constantly updating your run-book processes, as tools and environments change over the course of the year.
Written by Oli Thordarson, CEO of Alvaka Networks

You want to enter in a fully burdened labor rate for this field. What that means is that you want to take the base hourly rate, plus 25-30% for employer payroll taxes, benefits, vacation/holiday time, etc.
Smoke testing is a type of software testing performed by Alvaka after a software patching sequence to ensure that the system is working correctly and to identify any misconfigurations or conflicts within the patched system.
This is a basic cost calculator for you to compute your typical monthly cost for patching your servers, PCs, laptops, tablets and associated application software. It also forms the basis for you to begin calculating your Return on Investment for software patching, or for comparison with alternatives to the manual process of patching operating systems and application software—such as Patch Management as a Service, also known as Vulnerability Management as a Service.
Smoke testing is a term used to describe the testing process for servers after patches are applied.