| 1 |
On 16/10/2017 18:10, Ralph Seichter wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 16.10.2017 17:50, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Nagios and I go way back, way way waaaaaay back. I now recommend it |
| 5 |
>> never be used unless there really is no other option. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Have you tried Icinga 2 (*) yet? It originally started as a Nagios fork |
| 8 |
> and uses plugins to monitor, but the rule-based configuration mechanism |
| 9 |
> of Icinga 2 is IMO more powerful and easier than Nagios' mechanism. I've |
| 10 |
> used both Nagios and Icinga for years, and I definitely prefer Icinga 2. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> -Ralph |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> (*) https://www.icinga.com/products/icinga-2/ |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes, I know Icinga as well. It fixes many of Nagios' shortcomings - the |
| 18 |
first batch of commits after the fork took care of many of those - but |
| 19 |
still suffers from all of Nagios' design faults. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In short, I'm not interested in going back to Nagios after a year's |
| 22 |
migration to get away from it. Same for Icinga, Shinken, Sensu and all |
| 23 |
the other many nagios forks out there. Also Zabbix. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
My current monitoring is snmp-based, and all I need monit for is as a |
| 26 |
very narrowly-defined single-purpose watchdog. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 30 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives