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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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, Markhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2F51FDC6-8E99-445F-9787-3BA274BAC1CB>