1 / 28

Comprehensive Comparison of Nagios, Shinken, and Icinga for Effective Monitoring Solutions

This project presents an in-depth analysis of three popular monitoring systems: Nagios, Shinken, and Icinga. It includes a performance comparison of their features, usability tests, scalability assessments, and additional feature evaluations. Each system's strengths and weaknesses are highlighted, with scoring based on load handling, network efficiency, and user experience. The report addresses hardware limitations, installation processes, and client setups while emphasizing the preference for Nagios. Recommendations for combining strengths from these systems for optimal management are also discussed.

jolene
Télécharger la présentation

Comprehensive Comparison of Nagios, Shinken, and Icinga for Effective Monitoring Solutions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lucas Schill Brent Grover Ed Schilla Advisor: Danny Miller Project S.i.n.projectsin.info

  2. Overview • Comparison of Nagios, Shinken, and Icinga • Performance comparison of common features • Usability • Scalability • Extra feature testing for usability • Scoring procedures

  3. What it is • Monitoring System • Runs checks • Ability to alert • Track trends • Centralized Interaction • Monitor many devices from one location • View all states

  4. Goals • Provide an in-depth analysis of the software. • System load • Network Load • Usability • Complete the project this semester

  5. Setbacks • Hardware • Limited hardware availability • Bad RAM • Support • OS Licensing • Monitoring software support

  6. Network design

  7. Servers

  8. Client Setup • KVM • 5 host machines • 297 Debian clients • Scripted installation and management • Minimal client installation • 64MB RAM • 1GB disk space • Windows Clients • 3 Windows 7 clients with NSClient++ • 100 clients for each software suite

  9. Nagios • Version 3.4.4 • Written in C • Web Interface • Exfoliation • Nagios Open Source • Free to use • Forum Support • Nagios XI • User Interface • Framework • Enterprise Support

  10. Nagios (continued) • Nagios Version 4 • Not yet available • Complete rewrite • Support • Currently unable to receive direct support

  11. Nagios - Thoughts • Simple • Could use more features • Difficult to configure • Confusing configuration file layout • Would be better with a database as a backend • Stable • Lacks features but works well

  12. Icinga • Version 1.8.4 • Modular • Written in C • Classic Web • Automated Apache integration • Icinga-cmd group • Apache, Icinga user, etc • Authentication

  13. Icinga(continued) • Check scripts run locally • Check_by_ssh • Similar to Nagios • Third party plugins/scripts • Embedded perl interpretation • Config changes so far: • Check intervals

  14. Icinga(continued) • Windows integration • Icinga 2.0 • New Web

  15. Icinga- Thoughts • Quick • Highly customizable • Easy to install • Not very independent, or a “Fork” • Easy to change the installation (modular) • Third party scripts - simple

  16. Shinken • Version 1.2.3 • Designed as a Nagios drop in replacement that provides many of the features Nagios lacks by default • Written in Python • Open source • Very modular

  17. Shinken - Thoughts • Custom built installer • Installs all dependencies, configures the system, and can install additional plug-ins • Configuration • Complex, Nagios with Shinken mixed in • SkonfWebUI Beta • Interface • Looks good, lacks functionality

  18. Conclusion • Nagios was the best over all • No major downsides, or upsides • Shinken & Icinga tied in second. • Each strong in some areas, but weak in others • Final score (out of 10) • Nagios: 7.8 • Icinga: 7.1 • Shinken: 7.1

  19. Rubric

  20. Load Graphs Nagios Icinga Shinken

  21. Memory Graphs Nagios Icinga Shinken

  22. Network Graphs Nagios Icinga Shinken

  23. Budget

  24. Final Thoughts • Testing advanced features • Individual priorities • Shinken great backend • Icinga great frontend • Open source – combine projects • Fun and rewarding project

  25. Questions? Ice breaker, ask about this ^

More Related