[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xymon] Compare Xymon and Nagios
- To: xymon (at) xymon.com
- Subject: Re: [xymon] Compare Xymon and Nagios
- From: TJ Yang <tjyang2001 (at) gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:28:27 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cEQLVJ3KoaoYjl8M+Ubk1FHsXP4bWu3WGpJO/mWeKzY=; b=hP5INknBUq7pqm4NGrqyd/GkY9JkCLANylqhoC+r5ZoKrVBd6qCcpaEOvZwiIDCkvX qY1+hlUxipuf7Qre8cUJ0RMEyXHXwU213E77nzl3TFp25WkHf5RbaXOHqQyjDer/vOwe r3aFJQWtFjyr9v8w4sBewtZC9jkm/oIVvKO+I=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=C2OVcnl8a4ps04T+rmBY48um0iEdUb6vE6dEoWAk0FnaNvA5q6gD7m37Z2/PlvZKsd xwqpgSwOoDWyXo8unsUqK2C6oS+fL2UE36843dskrF2S7UO93DcsYKBtBTqB0Iveq5/S I+KCm4oxE8LLlo1Wh3OWNYBeowWhIV3WeNSxM=
- References: <4BB8E3BAE4CF5F4FADF1D0AFCA5D9B235897DD0B9B (at) XMB08.hemc.txnet.state.tx.us> <AANLkTikgNmwYS1fe-C+4319JcDLJhEfE9eHCKfRCPXZQ (at) mail.gmail.com> <OF3385D5F4.991150C2-ON862577EC.00657FCF-862577EC.0066872D (at) continental-corporation.com> <7271_1291301714_4CF7B351_7271_679549_1_1F7B01020EC4D04DA17703634B9E888E11947DAC (at) ULPGCTMVMAI003.EU.COLT>
Hi, Tinh
Nice to see you post question here.
I went through this Xymon vs Nagios evaluation exercise a few month
ago. Last evaluation was Hobbit vs BB.
Please see questions I posted to Nagio support in R1 for a clue, why
Xymon got picked over Nagios (in my case).
R1. http://support.nagios.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=442&p=1831#p1831
tj
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Ward, Martin <Martin.Ward (at) colt.net> wrote:
> Nagios was designed as a daemon to monitor itself on its own server. It
> relies on Nagios extensions like nrpe to transfer data back from remote
> servers.
>
>
>
> Configuration is extremely complicated in Nagios as compared to Xymon. You
> can get a Xymon server up and running much more quickly than a Nagios server
> because the Xymon client does so much of the work for you out of the box. By
> the same token, getting a Xymon client monitored is very simple, just
> installing the application and starting it up immediately gets you a host of
> standard system monitors like disk, memory, CPU and connectivity. Nagios is
> not so quick.
>
>
>
> When it comes down to writing non-standard monitors they are as easy as each
> other although at the end of the day, as mentioned by Johan, Xymon can send
> large packets of data back, Nagios currently can't…
>
>
>
> |\/|
>
> --
>
> Martin Ward
>
> Manager, Technical Services
>
>
>
> DDI:+44 (0) 20 7863 5218 / Fax: +44 (0)20 7863 9999 / www.colt.net
>
> Colt Technology Services, Unit 12, Powergate Business Park, Volt Avenue,
> Park Royal, London, NW10 6PW, UK.
>
>
>
> Help reduce your carbon footprint | Think before you print. Registered in
> England and Wales, registered number 02452736, VAT number GB 645 4205 50
>
>
>
> From: tinh.do (at) continental-corporation.com
> [mailto:tinh.do (at) continental-corporation.com]
> Sent: 01 December 2010 18:40
>
> To: xymon (at) xymon.com
> Subject: [xymon] Compare Xymon and Nagios
>
>
>
> some groups in my company start to use Nagios.
>
> Has anyone used it..
> Can anyone give the feedback regarding the Nagios. Pro or Con are welcome.
> I need that information to defend my choice of Xymon.
>
> Thanks
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> [Colt Disclaimer] The message is intended for the named addressee only and
> may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any
> way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and
> may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee
> and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing
> abuse (at) colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining
> any copies. Internet communications are not secure and Colt does not accept
> responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any
> viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of Colt Technology
> Services, its subsidiaries, group companies or affiliates ("Colt") and any
> other party by email communications unless expressly agreed in writing with
> such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically
> scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails.
> For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390
> 3900
--
T.J. Yang