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 SystemPurposeProcessorRAM pfSensepfSense 2.0.1RoutingDual P3 1GHz3GB SINSVR01RHEL 6.3IcingaDual P4 2.8GHz2GB SINSVR02RHEL 6.3NagiosDual P4 2.8GHz2GB SINSVR03RHEL 6.3ShinkenDual P4 2.8GHz2GB SINSVR04Debian 6.0.7KVM HostCore2quad 2.5GHz3.5GB SINSVR05Debian 6.0.7KVM HostCore2quad 2.5GHz6GB SINSVR06Debian 6.0.7MultipurposeDual P3 1GHz2GB SINSVR07Debian 6.0.7KVM HostDual-core Opteron 2GHz4GB SINSVR08Debian 6.0.7StorageAtom 1.66GHz4GB SINSVR09Debian 6.0.7KVM HostCore2quad 2.4GHz2GB SINSVR10Debian 6.0.7KVM HostQuad-core AMD 2.5GHz8GB

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  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  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  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 ShinkenIcingaNagiosWeight Installation10665% Configuration47815% Support76810% Interface2975% Plugins98810% Availability10 Ease of installation866 Mobile Application4875% Documentation10 15% Administration Total % Server Resources % Load1015 Memory4108 Net Resources86815% Performance Total % Overall Weighted Score (Out of 10)

Load Graphs Nagios Icinga Shinken

Memory Graphs Nagios Icinga Shinken

Network Graphs Nagios Icinga Shinken

Budget Starting Funds$ Second Semester Funds$ Spent Funds($140.70) Remaining Funds$ 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 ^