Re: [Nagios-devel] Feedback on Nagios
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:36 am
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Now this isn't a major problem for us - I wrote discovery scripts in
> perl that given a list of
Would you be interested in sharing this script?
> Currently with the first sweep of discovery (excluding networking type
> queries) we ended up with around
> 300 hosts and 1500 services with checking of services every 5 minutes.
> This absolutely hammered CPU of the
> box it was on (Sun E250 Dual CPU and 2Gb Memory). This was okay, we
> used the embedded perl option
> and this got us to just under 100% utilisation. Yes this is an issue
> with the plugins and I'll discuss this later.
Perl really isn't a great idea for plugins that get executed frequently;
it's just too large of a process. I've head that using perlcc improves
matters as well.
> tool for further processing.
> such as counters. Admittedly we run this at maximum nice levels to
> ensure it does not impact primary
> data collection work.
You might consider splitting the graphing mechanism off to a different
machine to lighten the load on the collector.
> ** Nagios does not natively deal with counters - not really a Nagios
> problem, just an observation. i.e. write your
I believe one of the selling points of Nagios is that it is completely
plugin agnostic -- it cares not what you are monitoring. Going down the
path of making it understand what certain plugins are doing would probably
greatly increase complexity and reduce stability.
> This is a real concern as NNM can do this without even breaking a sweat
> - admittedly it does not have the dependency type
> information included.
I think a more accurate comparison would be if you left out the dependency
information when taking the timings.
> I have seen patches to improve performance on this (have not yet
> implemented/tested) and I think this is improved on the next
> version.
The docs indicate that Nagios will create a 'compiled' config file for the
CGI's to read that will be less expensive.
> ** I am not sure that active checks scale at all well under Nagios.
You can also use distributed monitoring if you've maxed out your active
check capacity on a given machine.
- -Jason Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/
iD8DBQE/22obl2ODWuqVSBMRAg6hAJ4ixWzn5pWUqcul2Kg2Y/FtFX87KgCfXb+z
WJ/VY/95b6gCfOVXX315lRo=
=kwM1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]
Hash: SHA1
> Now this isn't a major problem for us - I wrote discovery scripts in
> perl that given a list of
Would you be interested in sharing this script?
> Currently with the first sweep of discovery (excluding networking type
> queries) we ended up with around
> 300 hosts and 1500 services with checking of services every 5 minutes.
> This absolutely hammered CPU of the
> box it was on (Sun E250 Dual CPU and 2Gb Memory). This was okay, we
> used the embedded perl option
> and this got us to just under 100% utilisation. Yes this is an issue
> with the plugins and I'll discuss this later.
Perl really isn't a great idea for plugins that get executed frequently;
it's just too large of a process. I've head that using perlcc improves
matters as well.
> tool for further processing.
> such as counters. Admittedly we run this at maximum nice levels to
> ensure it does not impact primary
> data collection work.
You might consider splitting the graphing mechanism off to a different
machine to lighten the load on the collector.
> ** Nagios does not natively deal with counters - not really a Nagios
> problem, just an observation. i.e. write your
I believe one of the selling points of Nagios is that it is completely
plugin agnostic -- it cares not what you are monitoring. Going down the
path of making it understand what certain plugins are doing would probably
greatly increase complexity and reduce stability.
> This is a real concern as NNM can do this without even breaking a sweat
> - admittedly it does not have the dependency type
> information included.
I think a more accurate comparison would be if you left out the dependency
information when taking the timings.
> I have seen patches to improve performance on this (have not yet
> implemented/tested) and I think this is improved on the next
> version.
The docs indicate that Nagios will create a 'compiled' config file for the
CGI's to read that will be less expensive.
> ** I am not sure that active checks scale at all well under Nagios.
You can also use distributed monitoring if you've maxed out your active
check capacity on a given machine.
- -Jason Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/
iD8DBQE/22obl2ODWuqVSBMRAg6hAJ4ixWzn5pWUqcul2Kg2Y/FtFX87KgCfXb+z
WJ/VY/95b6gCfOVXX315lRo=
=kwM1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]