Sergio Belkin wrote:
Even so, thanks for your comments, I'd like more experiences about monitoring systems. Again of topic, I want to avoid Nagios because it looks like over complex but if someone has an actual experience demostrating the opposite, I'd be glad to hear. Thanks in advance
We've used Nagios very successfully. We have hundreds of hosts and well over a thousand checks, so I'm guessing that we're probably a medium-ish installation. The use of templating makes adding hosts and services quick and painless. We've evaluated some of the other options already mentioned here: zabbix, opennms, zenoss, even mon, and big-brother and friends, and have always decided that nagios is the best product for our needs, as far as system monitoring goes. The initial learning curve is about medium compared to some, and once you've gotten over that hump, there just don't seem to be others. I've recommended Nagios to a few less-than-seasoned sysadmins who were able to take the templating concept and run with it. We have also setup cacti for the snmp statistics keeping. Nagios does have performance data capabilities now, they feel sort of tacked on to me. The folks over at http://www.centreon.com/ are working on an integrated user interface that includes statistics keeping using Nagios as the monitoring engine which looks as though there may be some promise, if I was starting over I'd definitely evaluate that.
I hope this is of some help in your review process. Sincerely, Jacob Leaver Sr. Systems Administrator ReachONE Internet _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
