Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
Hi, On Sat, 14.08.2010 at 23:49:49 -0700, Bryan Irvine wrote: > understand. Also, the OP wanted something that he can run on OpenBSD > and Zenoss runs on Linux. hmmm from my perspective, Zenoss looks like an "ordinary" Zope application, and should therefore run on OpenBSD as well. Kind regards, --Toni++
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:01:27AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Jiri B. wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:05:51 -0400 > > Jason Dixon wrote: > > > > > http://omniti.com/video/noit-oscon-demo > > > > Sorry no flash :) > > > > Some screenshots should be sufficient for this products, interesting is > > there are no screenshots except that architecture picture. > > Here's a quick one I just grabbed. We don't actively use Reconnoiter > these days as much as we do Circonus. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/78527...@n00/4892326857/ > > > Does it have some event console? So an operator can watch it 24x7 and > > see if something goes wrong and do a repair action? > > It has support for alerting in stratcon (iirc), but no fault detection > functionality is exposed in Reconnoiter's current web UI. Well, yes and no. There is the whole esper stuff that indeed is in there, but is described even by the creator as a bit of black magic ;) Another thing is that you can use for example curl to periodically query values of the metrics gathered, and for example feed them to nagios, and have it react to them changing. In short - it is an infrastructure to gather metrics from a lot of places, in various ways. And a web interface that allows you to make pretty graphs of them. For anything more, there are proper pieces in it, but you need to figure out yourself how to operate them and write something that will plug into them. > > It's nice it can act as snmp trap daemon... A lot of SAN devices have > > SNMP and Vmware ESXes can make good monitoring via SNMP as well. > > > > In our enterprise environment we have huge operators centers which > > watch 24x7 Tivoli Enteprise Console (yeah, ld shite), but what I > > saw is that one can right client on an event and run an action directly > > from event console (OK, it is not used at all but nice feature and you > > exclude possibility to fuck up something just with a similar but bad > > commmand). > > P.S. Sorry for the slow response, been enjoying my vacation. :) > > -- > Jason Dixon > DixonGroup Consulting > http://www.dixongroup.net/ -- viq
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:05:51PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 01:11:41PM -0700, James Peltier wrote: > > > > Being as I have never used Reconnoiter or Circonus, would you care to > > elaborate > > as to where these products "suck less" then Nagios or other solutions? I > > am > > looking into replacing out very aged monitoring system now and Nagios is > > the one > > that seems to stand out the most, although Zabbix and Munin look good in > > their > > own rights. > > Theo Schlossnagle (our CEO and the architect of Reconnoiter) answers it > pretty well in his talk from OSCON (requires flash, sorry). > > http://omniti.com/video/noit-oscon-demo > > In my words, Reconnoiter was designed to overcome a lot of the > performance and design problems native in Nagios and Cacti. It does a > lot of the things that either of those do, although it was designed > foremost as a highly scalable metrics collection "engine". Like Nagios, > the types of checks it can perform is virtually limitless. Unlike > Nagios, it is highly performant by design. Checks are deployed across > scout "agents" in your network, giving you both perspective and > non-persective collection points. > > The web UI in Reconnoiter is adequate. One of its really nice features > is the cli console, allowing you to configure checks and metrics in an > environment familiar to Cisco admins. Though from cli you can't reuse templates, which are very handy - thus for me checks are added in config file. Admittedly reloading of it is pretty painless. > That said, the bread-and-butter > in Reconnoiter is the sort of graphs which you can create and recreate > with ease. Unlike trending tools like Cacti, you can easily correlate > dissimilar metrics in a single graph, with just a few clicks. Stack > sets, composite datapoints and RPN conversion of source and display > values are just a few of the other features that are easy to implement > within Reconnoiter. Well, for this it would be highly appreciated if you would expand on the templating system that there are seeds of present ;) Clicking through creating graphs for those 20 metrics each on 20 machines is a pain... > > Guidance is always appreciated. :) > > Reconnoiter is not for everyone. It's a very powerful system, but it's > not intended to be a drop-in replacement for other ECA/Trending systems. > It takes time and effort to get value out of it, but it offers some > Capacity Planning and Root Cause Analysis capabilities that aren't > available or usable in the alternatives. Agreed, it takes a while to figure out how to set it up, but the graphs are pretty impressive. And I already at least once post-factum created a set of graphs showing correlation between various metrics on multiple machines, showing where possibly the problem came from. > -- > Jason Dixon > DixonGroup Consulting > http://www.dixongroup.net/ -- viq
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
I like Zenoss, though the new interface is a little difficult to understand. Also, the OP wanted something that he can run on OpenBSD and Zenoss runs on Linux. I like splunk a lot as well. I use splunk to send events to Zenoss. -B On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Fri, 13.08.2010 at 14:36:21 +0100, Kevin Chadwick > wrote: >> What do people think of monit. > > Ok, I'll chime in: What do people think of Zenoss and splunk? > > I'm so far leaning twoards trying Zenoss, but it surely has a high > barrier-of-entry, and I'm only interested in splunk for comparison. > > > Kind regards, > --Toni++
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Jiri B. wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:05:51 -0400 > Jason Dixon wrote: > > > http://omniti.com/video/noit-oscon-demo > > Sorry no flash :) > > Some screenshots should be sufficient for this products, interesting is > there are no screenshots except that architecture picture. Here's a quick one I just grabbed. We don't actively use Reconnoiter these days as much as we do Circonus. http://www.flickr.com/photos/78527...@n00/4892326857/ > Does it have some event console? So an operator can watch it 24x7 and > see if something goes wrong and do a repair action? It has support for alerting in stratcon (iirc), but no fault detection functionality is exposed in Reconnoiter's current web UI. > It's nice it can act as snmp trap daemon... A lot of SAN devices have > SNMP and Vmware ESXes can make good monitoring via SNMP as well. > > In our enterprise environment we have huge operators centers which > watch 24x7 Tivoli Enteprise Console (yeah, ld shite), but what I > saw is that one can right client on an event and run an action directly > from event console (OK, it is not used at all but nice feature and you > exclude possibility to fuck up something just with a similar but bad > commmand). P.S. Sorry for the slow response, been enjoying my vacation. :) -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On 15 August 2010 01:06, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2010/08/14 23:59, Eugene Yunak wrote: >> On 15 August 2010 00:16, Jiri B. wrote: >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:08:57 + (UTC) >> > Stuart Henderson wrote: >> > >> >> I'm occasionally working on a port of icinga which looks quite >> >> interesting (forked from nagios a while ago, it's still compatible >> >> but has diverged quite a bit now - many problems have been fixed >> >> and improvements made, in particular the UI has been totally >> >> replaced). Would have been done sooner, but despite its >> >> general crappiness and the many improvements that could be made, >> >> nagios actually works surprisingly well... >> > >> > There's another fork of Nagios - http://opsview.com/ - which looks they >> > gets huge list of enterprise users (just checking the web only). >> > >> > jirib >> > >> > >> >> Don't even bother to try - it's basically just a shitty web-frontend >> for nagios. It does not sort any of it's problems, and brings new >> ones. Did i mention it's shit and brings a lot of configuration and >> performance pain? > > heh, it wouldn't be the first time... icinga looks quite a different > thing, they do actually appear to be improving things. > Sorry for the confusion, i was talking about opsview. As to icinga, i haven;t tried it myself but heard some positive feedback from a colleague of mine. -- The best the little guy can do is what the little guy does right
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
Friends who are using splunk strictly as a logger liked it. We had hell of a lot of pain implementing 4.0. They don't understand the concept of dropping privs, so it has to run as root. My company does not allow the non-os team to have root. So endless fucking around with permissions and "hey unix team, can you please do this so that we can continue troubleshooting". And to top that, 4.0 through about 4.09 were feature *and* bug rich. They have agents which have to be installed and upgraded manually each time. Few hundred servers and that starts to get a bit old. And sux on aix (ok, that's our fault - the asshole who bought it bought a p520 instead of a x86 box. Before a solution/product was even finalized). And some kind of buffer overflow issue which I think is fixed now. So, if you're looking for something to sit on 512 and other assorted ports to receive logs, and index them, and give you a pretty interface to do searches on non-normalized data on linux, splunk's pretty nice. If you need to use some of their "additional" features (agents, etc) test it out first before doing it. Fortunately, you can get an annual 500meg/day license for free by just asking. On 8/14/10, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Fri, 13.08.2010 at 14:36:21 +0100, Kevin Chadwick > wrote: >> What do people think of monit. > > Ok, I'll chime in: What do people think of Zenoss and splunk? > > I'm so far leaning twoards trying Zenoss, but it surely has a high > barrier-of-entry, and I'm only interested in splunk for comparison. > > > Kind regards, > --Toni++ > > -- Sent from my mobile device http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On 15 August 2010 00:16, Jiri B. wrote: > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:08:57 + (UTC) > Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> I'm occasionally working on a port of icinga which looks quite >> interesting (forked from nagios a while ago, it's still compatible >> but has diverged quite a bit now - many problems have been fixed >> and improvements made, in particular the UI has been totally >> replaced). Would have been done sooner, but despite its >> general crappiness and the many improvements that could be made, >> nagios actually works surprisingly well... > > There's another fork of Nagios - http://opsview.com/ - which looks they > gets huge list of enterprise users (just checking the web only). > > jirib > > Don't even bother to try - it's basically just a shitty web-frontend for nagios. It does not sort any of it's problems, and brings new ones. Did i mention it's shit and brings a lot of configuration and performance pain? Our monitoring solutions team wanted to switch to it from nagios (after all the pain of going to nagios from BigBrother), thanks god we've convinced them not to do that. But it does have nice support. -- The best the little guy can do is what the little guy does right
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:08:57 + (UTC) Stuart Henderson wrote: > I'm occasionally working on a port of icinga which looks quite > interesting (forked from nagios a while ago, it's still compatible > but has diverged quite a bit now - many problems have been fixed > and improvements made, in particular the UI has been totally > replaced). Would have been done sooner, but despite its > general crappiness and the many improvements that could be made, > nagios actually works surprisingly well... There's another fork of Nagios - http://opsview.com/ - which looks they gets huge list of enterprise users (just checking the web only). jirib
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On 2010-08-14, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Fri, 13.08.2010 at 14:36:21 +0100, Kevin Chadwick > wrote: >> What do people think of monit. > > Ok, I'll chime in: What do people think of Zenoss and splunk? I haven't looked at splunk, but zenoss looks "fiddly" to install on OpenBSD, they provide a mega-tarball including tar.gz of all dependencies which they expect you to use. On OS which are fully-supported by the various projects I see some benefit from this (though I think it's still a pain), it's really annoying on OS where you really want to use packages for the dependencies which are already tested and have had various portability problems fixed. (freeswitch has a similar problem and this is one of the main reasons why there is no freeswitch port; it's even worse for zenoss as they repackage even more pointless stuff; python, rrdtool, gettext, glib, pixman, ...). I'm occasionally working on a port of icinga which looks quite interesting (forked from nagios a while ago, it's still compatible but has diverged quite a bit now - many problems have been fixed and improvements made, in particular the UI has been totally replaced). Would have been done sooner, but despite its general crappiness and the many improvements that could be made, nagios actually works surprisingly well... OpenNMS also looks pretty interesting, but unless they've worked around it by now, it doesn't work with snmpd(8) due to PR 6071.
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Fri, 13.08.2010 at 14:36:21 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > What do people think of monit. Ok, I'll chime in: What do people think of Zenoss and splunk? I'm so far leaning twoards trying Zenoss, but it surely has a high barrier-of-entry, and I'm only interested in splunk for comparison. Kind regards, --Toni++
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
What do people think of monit.
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
Jiri B. wrote: > Sorry no flash :) Hello, The follow was embedded on the page linked by jdixon, near the bottom you'll find this: http://s.omniti.net/video/noit-oscon-demo/flash/playlist.xml The direct link is inside. Without flash, manually forging for direct links is part of life.. -Bryan.
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:05:51 -0400 Jason Dixon wrote: > http://omniti.com/video/noit-oscon-demo Sorry no flash :) Some screenshots should be sufficient for this products, interesting is there are no screenshots except that architecture picture. Does it have some event console? So an operator can watch it 24x7 and see if something goes wrong and do a repair action? It's nice it can act as snmp trap daemon... A lot of SAN devices have SNMP and Vmware ESXes can make good monitoring via SNMP as well. In our enterprise environment we have huge operators centers which watch 24x7 Tivoli Enteprise Console (yeah, ld shite), but what I saw is that one can right client on an event and run an action directly from event console (OK, it is not used at all but nice feature and you exclude possibility to fuck up something just with a similar but bad commmand). jirib
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 07:00:37PM +0200, Martin Schrvder wrote: > 2010/8/10 Iqigo Ortiz de Urbina : > > Mainstream open source monitoring is pretty much about munin, cacti, > > nagios, zabbix. You can make any of these run on openbsd, AFAIK. > > A munin port would be highly appreciated. :-) net/munin has been present since 4.7. Joachim -- TFMotD: ssm (4/SPARC64) - Scalable Shared Memory
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 01:11:41PM -0700, James Peltier wrote: > > Being as I have never used Reconnoiter or Circonus, would you care to > elaborate > as to where these products "suck less" then Nagios or other solutions? I am > looking into replacing out very aged monitoring system now and Nagios is the > one > that seems to stand out the most, although Zabbix and Munin look good in > their > own rights. Theo Schlossnagle (our CEO and the architect of Reconnoiter) answers it pretty well in his talk from OSCON (requires flash, sorry). http://omniti.com/video/noit-oscon-demo In my words, Reconnoiter was designed to overcome a lot of the performance and design problems native in Nagios and Cacti. It does a lot of the things that either of those do, although it was designed foremost as a highly scalable metrics collection "engine". Like Nagios, the types of checks it can perform is virtually limitless. Unlike Nagios, it is highly performant by design. Checks are deployed across scout "agents" in your network, giving you both perspective and non-persective collection points. The web UI in Reconnoiter is adequate. One of its really nice features is the cli console, allowing you to configure checks and metrics in an environment familiar to Cisco admins. That said, the bread-and-butter in Reconnoiter is the sort of graphs which you can create and recreate with ease. Unlike trending tools like Cacti, you can easily correlate dissimilar metrics in a single graph, with just a few clicks. Stack sets, composite datapoints and RPN conversion of source and display values are just a few of the other features that are easy to implement within Reconnoiter. > Guidance is always appreciated. :) Reconnoiter is not for everyone. It's a very powerful system, but it's not intended to be a drop-in replacement for other ECA/Trending systems. It takes time and effort to get value out of it, but it offers some Capacity Planning and Root Cause Analysis capabilities that aren't available or usable in the alternatives. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
- Original Message > From: Jason Dixon > To: C. Bensend > Cc: misc@openbsd.org > Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 12:58:50 PM > Subject: Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD) > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:41:26PM -0500, C. Bensend wrote: > > > nagios is shit. misdesigned, horrible code, and someone who obviously > > > doesn't understand blocking semantics of sockets writing that part of > > > the code... > > > > > > that said, I use it, too. and as almost every other serious user with > > > at least a little bit of standards left I hate it. > > > > I cannot speak to the quality of code; I couldn't code my way out of > > a wet paper bag and am horribly unqualified to comment. > > Henning is completely accurate (*). Nagios code is shite and reflects > poorly on the engineering skills of the creator. Its near-monopoly > position in the community is based on two factors: > > 1) Price. Although you pay dearly in time spent setting it up, > maintaining it, and in outages caused by it (keep reading). > > 2) It's the least crappy of all crappy open-source monitoring options. > > > However, this is a majority of my job where I am now, and I don't > > dislike it. It's infinitely extensible, makes it simple to write > > plugins for stuff that you can't already find one for, and has a > > fairly large community. > > We used it for a very long time on a very large scale. While it is > extensible, it promotes poor design choices and puts no limitations on > the style or number of shite extensions. But my biggest beef is on some > of the design choices that allow you to shoot yourself in the foot. As > my therapist would say, Nagios is an "enabler". > > Take for example, Nagios acknowledgments. They never expire, so it's > very easy to ack something and forget about it. For days. Or better > yet, the idea of "flapping". At face value, this seems like a good > idea. But whatever happened to actually *responding* to an alert when > something goes wrong. Let me get this straight... you WANT your > monitoring system to stop alerting you when your shit goes down? What > am I missing here? > > > It's a *helluva* lot better than Mon or Big Brother, both of which > > I've used in the past, and both of which made me weep tears of > > blood. > > See above. > > (*) I should disclose that I'm the Prod. Mgr. for Circonus, a SaaS > version of Reconnoiter with trending, fault detection and notifications. > Circonus is not free, but is based on Reconnoiter which is actively > developed as an open-source BSD-licensed project. Both were engineered > to directly address the pain we've experienced over the years working > with "solutions" like Nagios and Cacti. So although it's fair to > consider me biased towards our software, suffice it to say that if > Nagios didn't suck so badly we never would have developed either > Reconnoiter or Circonus. There are some OpenBSD-Reconnoiter users in > the community; if you're interested in finding out more about > Reconnoiter, ask around or check out the project website. > > http://labs.omniti.com/labs/reconnoiter > > -- > Jason Dixon > DixonGroup Consulting > http://www.dixongroup.net/ Being as I have never used Reconnoiter or Circonus, would you care to elaborate as to where these products "suck less" then Nagios or other solutions? I am looking into replacing out very aged monitoring system now and Nagios is the one that seems to stand out the most, although Zabbix and Munin look good in their own rights. Guidance is always appreciated. :)
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:41:26PM -0500, C. Bensend wrote: > > nagios is shit. misdesigned, horrible code, and someone who obviously > > doesn't understand blocking semantics of sockets writing that part of > > the code... > > > > that said, I use it, too. and as almost every other serious user with > > at least a little bit of standards left I hate it. > > I cannot speak to the quality of code; I couldn't code my way out of > a wet paper bag and am horribly unqualified to comment. Henning is completely accurate (*). Nagios code is shite and reflects poorly on the engineering skills of the creator. Its near-monopoly position in the community is based on two factors: 1) Price. Although you pay dearly in time spent setting it up, maintaining it, and in outages caused by it (keep reading). 2) It's the least crappy of all crappy open-source monitoring options. > However, this is a majority of my job where I am now, and I don't > dislike it. It's infinitely extensible, makes it simple to write > plugins for stuff that you can't already find one for, and has a > fairly large community. We used it for a very long time on a very large scale. While it is extensible, it promotes poor design choices and puts no limitations on the style or number of shite extensions. But my biggest beef is on some of the design choices that allow you to shoot yourself in the foot. As my therapist would say, Nagios is an "enabler". Take for example, Nagios acknowledgments. They never expire, so it's very easy to ack something and forget about it. For days. Or better yet, the idea of "flapping". At face value, this seems like a good idea. But whatever happened to actually *responding* to an alert when something goes wrong. Let me get this straight... you WANT your monitoring system to stop alerting you when your shit goes down? What am I missing here? > It's a *helluva* lot better than Mon or Big Brother, both of which > I've used in the past, and both of which made me weep tears of > blood. See above. (*) I should disclose that I'm the Prod. Mgr. for Circonus, a SaaS version of Reconnoiter with trending, fault detection and notifications. Circonus is not free, but is based on Reconnoiter which is actively developed as an open-source BSD-licensed project. Both were engineered to directly address the pain we've experienced over the years working with "solutions" like Nagios and Cacti. So although it's fair to consider me biased towards our software, suffice it to say that if Nagios didn't suck so badly we never would have developed either Reconnoiter or Circonus. There are some OpenBSD-Reconnoiter users in the community; if you're interested in finding out more about Reconnoiter, ask around or check out the project website. http://labs.omniti.com/labs/reconnoiter -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
> nagios is shit. misdesigned, horrible code, and someone who obviously > doesn't understand blocking semantics of sockets writing that part of > the code... > > that said, I use it, too. and as almost every other serious user with > at least a little bit of standards left I hate it. I cannot speak to the quality of code; I couldn't code my way out of a wet paper bag and am horribly unqualified to comment. However, this is a majority of my job where I am now, and I don't dislike it. It's infinitely extensible, makes it simple to write plugins for stuff that you can't already find one for, and has a fairly large community. It's a *helluva* lot better than Mon or Big Brother, both of which I've used in the past, and both of which made me weep tears of blood. Benny -- "Something's going on in this house - last night, I saw a face!" "Did it have a nose?" "Yes!" "That sounds like a face all right." -- Scary Movie 4
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
2010/8/10 Iqigo Ortiz de Urbina : > Mainstream open source monitoring is pretty much about munin, cacti, > nagios, zabbix. You can make any of these run on openbsd, AFAIK. A munin port would be highly appreciated. :-) Best Martin
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
* Eugene Yunak [2010-08-10 15:05]: > Definitely nagios/cacti pair or zabbix. Having used nagios for a year > or so, i would never want to get back to Tivoli. It also gives you > lots of flexibility in how you setup your monitoring, and can neatly > work with snmp as well. anyone using nagios and neat in the same sentence without negation must also enjoy beating his head against a wall. nagios is shit. misdesigned, horrible code, and someone who obviously doesn't understand blocking semantics of sockets writing that part of the code... that said, I use it, too. and as almost every other serious user with at least a little bit of standards left I hate it. the old, trivial, mon package we used before just didn't cut it any more, had its own share of problems and wasn't fix- and extendable with reasonable effort, and there were no other options but nagios back then. and since it took us almost a year to switch over I am not looking forward to do it again. I am not even sure there is anything at least halfway good out there today. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
Mainstream open source monitoring is pretty much about munin, cacti, nagios, zabbix. You can make any of these run on openbsd, AFAIK. Even though they serve different purposes, my favourite (if no custom, tailored solution is crafted) between these is cacti. However, its pretty disappointing the lack of support for alternative (see psql) backends :( On 8/10/10, Eugene Yunak wrote: > On 10 August 2010 02:28, Jiri B. wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm thinking to choose a monitoring tool which would run on OpenBSD >> of course. >> >> I have been working with Tivoli and Netview for couple of years so my >> idea is: >> >> * clients >> >> - heartbeats of course >> - simple interface to give a client some input as alert >> - text configuration on client node (can be pushed from central repo) >> - light >> >> * infrastructure nodes >> >> - proxy feature for far networks or dmz >> - filtering rules (thresholds, time filters ...) >> - text configuration >> - light >> >> * main server(s) >> >> - good filtering >> - surveillance console for monitoring center >> - be able to change status of an alert (acknowledge, closed, solved...) >> - be able to have some categories of clients based on roles >> >> I'm watching zabbix... not sure... >> >> If I wouldn't want event console I would probably check snmp -> sec -> >> snmptt. >> >> jirib >> >> > > Definitely nagios/cacti pair or zabbix. Having used nagios for a year > or so, i would never want to get back to Tivoli. It also gives you > lots of flexibility in how you setup your monitoring, and can neatly > work with snmp as well. > > Eugene > > -- > The best the little guy can do is what > the little guy does right
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On 10 August 2010 02:28, Jiri B. wrote: > Hello, > > I'm thinking to choose a monitoring tool which would run on OpenBSD > of course. > > I have been working with Tivoli and Netview for couple of years so my > idea is: > > * clients > > - heartbeats of course > - simple interface to give a client some input as alert > - text configuration on client node (can be pushed from central repo) > - light > > * infrastructure nodes > > - proxy feature for far networks or dmz > - filtering rules (thresholds, time filters ...) > - text configuration > - light > > * main server(s) > > - good filtering > - surveillance console for monitoring center > - be able to change status of an alert (acknowledge, closed, solved...) > - be able to have some categories of clients based on roles > > I'm watching zabbix... not sure... > > If I wouldn't want event console I would probably check snmp -> sec -> > snmptt. > > jirib > > Definitely nagios/cacti pair or zabbix. Having used nagios for a year or so, i would never want to get back to Tivoli. It also gives you lots of flexibility in how you setup your monitoring, and can neatly work with snmp as well. Eugene -- The best the little guy can do is what the little guy does right
Re: which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:28:09 +0200 "Jiri B." wrote: > I'm thinking to choose a monitoring tool which would run on OpenBSD > of course. *) Nagios to monitor for problems *) Cacti for performance logs Nfsen, smokeping and pfstat are also handy sometimes. Don't expect exact Tivoli/Netview clones; it's just important that you get the required *information* from your tools, not the same interface... regards, Robert
which monitoring do you use (on OpenBSD)
Hello, I'm thinking to choose a monitoring tool which would run on OpenBSD of course. I have been working with Tivoli and Netview for couple of years so my idea is: * clients - heartbeats of course - simple interface to give a client some input as alert - text configuration on client node (can be pushed from central repo) - light * infrastructure nodes - proxy feature for far networks or dmz - filtering rules (thresholds, time filters ...) - text configuration - light * main server(s) - good filtering - surveillance console for monitoring center - be able to change status of an alert (acknowledge, closed, solved...) - be able to have some categories of clients based on roles I'm watching zabbix... not sure... If I wouldn't want event console I would probably check snmp -> sec -> snmptt. jirib
