> As Jane's paper makes clear, Nagios less the networking tool, and more the
> extensible way to monitor specific systems and applications. If hand editing
> configuration files scares you, it's not for you. But anything that's trying
> to go fully GUI these days goes XML. And if hand editing configuration files
> seems to you - like to me - the perfect way to precisely control vital
> system daemons, then XML is a distinct disadvantage.
I'm quite happy using nagios and zenoss alongside. While I didn't read the
nagios book, creating (bits of) config files is easily scripted and can
make a big difference along with the use of host and service groups.
Zenoss is quite trigger-happy and doesn't handle connectivity problems
very well. Nagios does a better job here out of the box (i.e. it backs off
and tries again), and if zenoss can be tuned to work the same way, it's not
obvious. The UI is a really bad design with a steep learning curve IMHO.
Zenoss community support is pretty good, although I have often managed to
find a solution myself after digging into it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its
subsidiaries) confidential information. If it has been received
in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this
message.
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
