Final Presentation PowerPoint

Report
Lucas Schill
Brent Grover
Ed Schilla
Advisor: Danny Miller
Overview

Comparison of Nagios, Shinken, and
Icinga
 Performance comparison of common




features
Usability
Scalability
Extra feature testing for usability
Scoring procedures
What it is

Monitoring System
 Runs checks
 Ability to alert
 Track trends

Centralized Interaction
 Monitor many devices from one location
 View all states
Goals

Provide an in-depth analysis of the
software.
 System load
 Network Load
 Usability

Complete the project this semester
Setbacks

Hardware
 Limited hardware availability
 Bad RAM

Support
 OS Licensing
 Monitoring software support
Network design
Servers
Hostname
Operating
System
Purpose
Processor
RAM
pfSense
pfSense 2.0.1
Routing
Dual P3 1GHz
3GB
SINSVR01
RHEL 6.3
Icinga
Dual P4 2.8GHz
2GB
SINSVR02
RHEL 6.3
Nagios
Dual P4 2.8GHz
2GB
SINSVR03
RHEL 6.3
Shinken
Dual P4 2.8GHz
2GB
SINSVR04
Debian 6.0.7
KVM Host
Core2quad 2.5GHz
3.5GB
SINSVR05
Debian 6.0.7
KVM Host
Core2quad 2.5GHz
6GB
SINSVR06
Debian 6.0.7
Multipurpose
Dual P3 1GHz
2GB
SINSVR07
Debian 6.0.7
KVM Host
Dual-core Opteron 2GHz
4GB
SINSVR08
Debian 6.0.7
Storage
Atom 1.66GHz
4GB
SINSVR09
Debian 6.0.7
KVM Host
Core2quad 2.4GHz
2GB
SINSVR10
Debian 6.0.7
KVM Host
Quad-core AMD 2.5GHz
8GB
Client Setup

KVM




5 host machines
297 Debian clients
Scripted installation and management
Minimal client installation
○ 64MB RAM
○ 1GB disk space

Windows Clients
 3 Windows 7 clients with NSClient++

100 clients for each software suite
Nagios



Version 3.4.4
Written in C
Web Interface
 Exfoliation

Nagios Open Source
 Free to use
 Forum Support

Nagios XI
 User Interface
 Framework
 Enterprise Support
Nagios (continued)

Nagios Version 4
 Not yet available
 Complete rewrite

Support
 Currently unable to receive direct support
Nagios - Thoughts

Simple
 Could use more features

Difficult to configure
 Confusing configuration file layout
 Would be better with a database as a
backend

Stable
 Lacks features but works well
Icinga
Version 1.8.4
 Modular
 Written in C
 Classic Web

 Automated Apache integration

Icinga-cmd group
 Apache, Icinga user, etc

Authentication
Icinga(continued)

Check scripts run locally
 Check_by_ssh
Similar to Nagios
 Third party plugins/scripts

 Embedded perl interpretation

Config changes so far:
 Check intervals
Icinga(continued)
Windows integration
 Icinga 2.0
 New Web

Icinga - Thoughts
Quick
 Highly customizable
 Easy to install
 Not very independent, or a “Fork”
 Easy to change the installation
(modular)
 Third party scripts - simple

Shinken
Version 1.2.3
 Designed as a Nagios drop in
replacement that provides many of the
features Nagios lacks by default
 Written in Python
 Open source
 Very modular

Shinken - Thoughts

Custom built installer
 Installs all dependencies, configures the
system, and can install additional plug-ins

Configuration
 Complex, Nagios with Shinken mixed in
 Skonf WebUI Beta

Interface
 Looks good, lacks functionality
Conclusion

Nagios was the best over all
 No major downsides, or upsides

Shinken & Icinga tied in second.
 Each strong in some areas, but weak in
others

Final score (out of 10)
 Nagios: 7.8
 Icinga: 7.1
 Shinken: 7.1
Rubric
Shinken
Icinga
Nagios
Weight
Installation
Configuration
Support
Interface
Plugins
Availability
Ease of installation
Mobile Application
Documentation
Administration Total
10
4
7
2
9
10
8
4
10
64
6
7
6
9
8
10
6
8
10
70
6
8
8
7
8
10
6
7
10
70
5%
15%
10%
5%
10%
Server Resources
Load
Memory
Net Resources
Performance Total
7
10
4
8
29
5.5
1
10
6
22.5
6.5
5
8
8
27.5
20%
Overall Weighted
Score (Out of 10)
7.1
7.1
7.8
5%
15%
65%
15%
35%
Load
Graphs
Nagios
Icinga
Shinken
Memory
Graphs
Nagios
Icinga
Shinken
Network
Graphs
Nagios
Icinga
Shinken
Budget
Starting Funds
$300.00
Second Semester Funds
$300.00
Spent Funds
Remaining Funds
($140.70)
$459.30
Spend Funds Detailed
Rail Clips
($27.54)
4x SCSI Hard Drives
($40.00)
2x4GB DDR3 RAM
($73.24)
Final Thoughts
Testing advanced features
 Individual priorities

 Shinken great backend
 Icinga great frontend
Open source – combine projects
 Fun and rewarding project

Questions?
Ice breaker, ask about this ^

similar documents