Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:53:49 +1000 From: Mark Sergeant <msergeant@snsonline.net> To: Kurt Jaeger <lists@complx.LF.net> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, Oliver Brandmueller <ob@e-Gitt.NET> Subject: Re: Network Monitoring Message-ID: <2F51FDC6-8E99-445F-9787-3BA274BAC1CB@snsonline.net> In-Reply-To: <20060104152047.GD1429@complx.LF.net> References: <43BBE24B.8040005@ide.resurscentrum.se> <20060104150858.GD99739@e-Gitt.NET> <20060104152047.GD1429@complx.LF.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/01/2006, at 1:20 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> nagios (also in the ports). It's extremely flexible. > > We have performance issues with it (approx. 400 systems). > > Is this just us or ... ? > Nope not just you, 1k hosts and the system was almost unusable on a dual amd mp2800, in the end I wrote my own monitoring system running from a db backend and achieved the same results as nagios with 1/50th the actual load whilst also keeping historical data in a db. Nagios is great if you need the multitude of host checks (ssh,apache,mysql,postgres, etc etc) for a core network, but if you're just after something to check host connectivity it may not be the right tool for the job. Cheers, Mark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2F51FDC6-8E99-445F-9787-3BA274BAC1CB>