[hobbit] Hobbit vs Nagios

[John Glowacki]

Since you are talking just a few systems. You could try this agentless 
idea that was mentioned way back.

http://www.hswn.dk/hobbiton/2006/01/msg00045.html

I just tried it on a PPC embedded linux device which has limited command 
functionality. The basics are working for cpu, disk, ports and procs. 
Procs I had to echo a fake header, but it is listing the processes and 
checking what should be running. And now memory. I had to re-format the 
output with sed. 7 of the 8 Graphs seem to work properly. I got it to do 
more then I expected. If I needed msgs, I probably could have found a way.

John

Hubbard, Greg L wrote:
> Well, that's that.
> 
> My problem is that I have a few systems that I want to monitor that are
> either old, or singletons, or both.  In my particular case it is and
> elderly one-of-a-kind system.
> 
> I understand your reluctance to maintain two source trees.  If you can
> write C, you can write Perl, and probably run rings around most Perl
> hackers.
> 
> Thanks anyway!
> 
> GLH
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Stoerner [mailto:henrik at hswn.dk] 
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:12 AM
> To: hobbit at hswn.dk
> Subject: Re: [hobbit] Hobbit vs Nagios
> 
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:18:17AM -0500, Hubbard, Greg L wrote:
> 
>>I heard a rumor that Nagios has an optional client that does not have 
>>to be compiled.  Don't know if this is true, but it would sure help me
> 
> 
>>out if there was a "Perl-only" or "Perl+shell" client that I could use
> 
> 
>>on the one or two systems where I cannot install all the junk needed 
>>to compile a Hobbit client binary.  Binary Perl distributions that 
>>just drop in are usually available...  I know there would be a 
>>performance hit, but I would rather have a more expensive-to-run 
>>client than no client.
>>
>>Thoughts?
> 
> 
> The only tools you need for building a Hobbit client are a C compiler
> and GNU make. Period.
> 
> Combined with the fact that you can compile the client on one system,
> wrap it up in a tar-file and install it on all of the other systems, I
> really don't think this is a big issue. I've already had a couple of
> people offering their pre-built clients for various platforms for
> download, so I expect that once the 4.2 release is out, there will
> quickly be ready-to-run binaries available for download.
> 
> I really don't want to have two separate implementations of the same
> utility. Especially not one that I will not be able to maintain - I am
> about as good at Perl programming as the proverbial monkey.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Henrik
>