Agent and agentless checks across servers, storage, hypervisors, databases and cloud workloads, with synthetic transactions on the services your users actually notice.
Thresholds are tuned to your estate during transition, because a default threshold on a busy estate is just noise.
A staffed shift rather than a pager, with handover crossing time zones in working hours.
On-premises, cloud and hybrid, including the part the last acquisition brought with it.
Alerts are triaged against the change record first, because most incidents follow a change.
An alert nobody acts on gets fixed or removed. It is not left to erode trust.
Monitoring that only covers infrastructure tells you the servers are fine while the business is down. Synthetic checks on the actual services are what close that gap.
Hosts, guests, clusters and hypervisors: CPU, memory, contention, ballooning, snapshot sprawl and failed migrations.
Capacity trends are reported quarterly so the next host purchase is a decision rather than an emergency.
Contention caught before users describe it as slowness.
Arrays, LUNs, datastores, latency and queue depth, alongside backup job outcomes and repository capacity.
A green backup job is monitored as a job, not accepted as proof of recoverability. Restores are tested separately.
Capacity and latency trending, not just free-space alarms.
Instance availability, tablespace growth, blocking sessions, job failures and the queues that back up behind them.
Where the database is Oracle, the same team runs the DBA service, so an alert does not stop at a handover.
Alerts that name the workload, not just the host.
Azure and AWS resource health, quota limits, subscription events, autoscale behaviour and spend anomalies.
Cloud alerts include cost, because an unnoticed scale-out event is a billing incident as well as a technical one.
One view across on-premises and cloud rather than two consoles.
Scripted transactions against the handful of services that define a good day: login, order entry, close, portal, mail flow.
Written with your team during transition, from the processes that generate revenue or stop it.
You learn a service is broken before a user tells you.
Severity mapping, escalation matrix with names against it, on-call rota, and suppression during agreed change windows.
Every route is documented, so nobody wonders who was paged or whether anyone was.
A page that reaches a person who can act on it.
Standing monitoring up
Response targets are for acknowledgement and first action. Resolution targets are set per system against the criticality agreed at inventory.
| Layer | What is watched | First action | Response target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compute | Hosts, guests, clusters, hypervisor health | Alert triaged against change history, incident raised, owner notified | 15 min, P1 |
| Storage | Arrays, datastores, latency, capacity, backup jobs | Job rerun or capacity reclaimed, growth trend checked | 30 min, P2 |
| Database | Availability, tablespaces, blocking, scheduled jobs | Session or job addressed, DBA engaged where needed | 15 min, P1 |
| Network | Reachability of monitored nodes, path health | Handed to the network team with the path already isolated | 15 min, P1 |
| Cloud | Resource health, quotas, subscription events, spend | Workload scaled or isolated, cost anomaly reported same day | 30 min, P2 |
| Services | Synthetic transactions on named business services | Incident raised against the service, not the component | 15 min, P1 |
The common failure in monitoring is not missing coverage. It is volume. Once a team learns that most alerts mean nothing, it stops reading them, and the one that mattered arrives into an inbox nobody trusts.
So alert volume is a reported metric, not a by-product. Every suppression is recorded with a reason, every flapping check is fixed rather than filtered, and recurring alerts become problem records with owners.
Ask for a monitoring reviewApplies to estates we monitor, and it is the review standard we assess an existing setup against.
No. If you already run something that works, we operate it and keep the configuration in your hands. Replacing a working tool is a project with cost and risk, and it rarely improves the thing that is actually wrong, which is usually threshold quality and routing rather than the product.
Coverage lands in the first fortnight. Usefulness takes a full business cycle, because thresholds need to see a month end, a payroll run and a quiet weekend before they can be set honestly. Anyone promising tuned monitoring in week one has copied a template.
A scripted transaction that does what a user does: log in, raise an order, run a report, send a mail through the relay. It fails when the service fails, even when every underlying component reports healthy, which is the scenario that damages credibility most.
Your escalation matrix decides, and it is documented with names rather than roles. Our bridge takes first action on everything monitored; you are contacted at the severity and the hours you set. Nothing is escalated to you as a surprise at 3am unless you asked for that.
Yes, and it is a common first step. Monitoring-only engagements are bounded, measurable within a month, and they surface most of what is wrong with an estate before anyone commits to a wider contract.
Start with a monitoring review. Short, needs read access rather than a contract, and it produces a coverage gap list you keep either way.