Cloud Management and AIOps


This is an IBM Automation portal for Cloud Management, Technology Cost Management, Network Automation and AIOps products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas

  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

ADD A NEW IDEA

Clear

Ideas

Showing 95 of 6274

The ability to configure a schedule in our policy CR

For resizing operations (vertical scaling) our users are going to want to control when automatic actions are applied. Via the UI I do see an option to create a policy schedule.
over 2 years ago in IBM Turbonomic ARM / Container Platforms (K8s & OpenShift) 2 Not under consideration

Improve stitching where multiple services are backed by the same workload

Turbo should be able to handle multiple services that are front-ending the same workload PM update: Will convert this to an improvement on how Turbonomic stitches Services to Containerized Workload to be handled under 2 master epics: Multiple Serv...
over 2 years ago in IBM Turbonomic ARM / Container Platforms (K8s & OpenShift) 2 Not under consideration

Getting container IP from extractor

Netskope would like the ability to get container IP from the extractor. PM comment: this is not functionality related to Turbonomic, rather an issue related to choice of or configuration of the Prometheus exporter used.
over 2 years ago in IBM Turbonomic ARM / Container Platforms (K8s & OpenShift) 1 Not under consideration

Working with Prometheus in container environment

Today we don’t manage exporter, and metric has to be in Turbo namespace, but Netskope would like it to be available in all namespaces.
over 2 years ago in IBM Turbonomic ARM / Container Platforms (K8s & OpenShift) 3 Not under consideration

Node state shows as “Active” in Turbonomic Console even when a Node is marked as “unschedulable” in OpenShift

When draining a NODE OpenShift Kubernetes, and un-schedulable in OpenShift, Turbonomic console shows the node as "Active". There is no way to know if a NODE is un-schedulable or cordoned. Similar to VCenter where a Host is in maintenance mode it s...
over 2 years ago in IBM Turbonomic ARM / Container Platforms (K8s & OpenShift) 3 Functionality already exists

POD Placement: Error Details insufficient for "Failed to start action... due to error"

Failed POD moves do not say why the Failed to start action ended in an error and what that error is. A long number is shown with in not informative. Can you link the number to a meaning and present that in the error output?
over 2 years ago in IBM Turbonomic ARM / Container Platforms (K8s & OpenShift) 1 Is a defect

(NPI) Ability to modify Traffic Volume Trend graph to view bandwidth by interface/circuit

Would like the ability to modify the Traffic Volume Trend graph to view the bandwidth used based on a specific interface and/or circuit, by percentage of bandwidth used (i.e. 0-100%).
about 5 years ago in Cloud Pak for Network Automation / Performance 1 Not under consideration

Matt would like Turbonomic to have the ability to base RI purchase planning recommendations on a greater time scale than just 30 days, ideally up to 90 days.

Better visualization of long term usage of RIs and better able to compete with native Azure RI recommendations
about 3 years ago in IBM Turbonomic ARM / Planning 0 Future consideration

In the Alleviate Pressure Plan the for the cold clusters the sorting order should be reversed to put green clusters at the top.

When utilizing the Alleviate Pressure Plan first a hot cluster is selected which is either a red, yellow, or orange cluster - which are sorted to the top for easy selection. On the next selection to select a cold cluster the sort order is the same...
about 3 years ago in IBM Turbonomic ARM / Planning 2 Not under consideration

Sector Busy Hour

Requirements from customer to have Sector Busy Hour calculation. Using the following small example, where we have the LTE Cells which belong to the same eNodeB “JHRTJML” LTE Cell Name Band Cell ID Sector JHRTJML_103 L26 103 S3 JHRTJML_102 L26 102 ...
over 3 years ago in Cloud Pak for Network Automation / Performance 0 Not under consideration

By clicking the "Post Comment" or "Submit Idea" button, you are agreeing to the IBM Ideas Portal Terms of Use.
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.