Re: [hobbit] Hobbit

[Gildas Le Nadan <gn1 (at) sanger.ac.uk>]

Hi,

> Hobbit is easier to configure, I give you that. We are running Nagios and 
> Hobbit side by side and obviously when new servers are build nagios is left 
> out and the kickstarts are built to install hobbit.

Sorry, I'm not sure to understand: why would the Nagios client be more 
difficult to install automatically?

There's some packages for nagios remote execute, and the monitoring may 
be done using snmp so all you have to do is install/configure snmp on 
the hosts you want to monitor if it is not convenient to do otherwise.

> But I could do some 
> comparisons and I started collecting data that makes hobbit look not so 
> reliable as Nagios.

What do you mean by "not so reliable"?

Does it means that you think that hobbit is not as scalable as nagios?
Or does it means that the data it collects/presents are not acurate?
Or does it means hobbit crashes more often than Nagios does?

>  Nagios also has some functionality that I could not find 
> in hobbit.

Would it be possible for you to send a list of the missing 
functionalities on the Mailing List? Hobbit is open source, implementing 
a missing functionality may be done by anyone if it is really useful. 
But first you have to know that it is missing ;)

Cheers,
Gildas