Members Brent Grover Lucas Schill Edward Schilla Advised by Danny Miller Project Goal & Mission Statement Conclusions Infrastructure Rubric Project S.I.N. Shinken Icinga Nagios The Team Project S.I.N. is an in-depth comparison of the IT infrastructure monitoring tools Nagios, Shinken, and Icinga. This comparison is part of a senior design project at Michigan Technological University. Each of the three tools has its own strengths and weaknesses and there has not been a full comparison of all three at once. Our plan is to thoroughly document our comparison and make it available to the world. The comparison will be based on scalability, usability, features, and overall performance. Along with ease of use comes peace of mind knowing that the solution can scale accordingly in the future to meet the needs of the company. This study will provide useful and factual information for any individual or company to choose the right tool for them. Other Devices ˗ 297 Virtualized Clients ˗ 3 Physical Windows Clients ˗ Netgear 48-port Gigabit Switch 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) 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 Pros -Good looking interface -Excellent processing backend -Easiest installation -Lowest processing power required Pros ˗ The cleanest, most useful Interface ˗ Best memory usage ˗ Organized well Pros -No major downsides -Largest community -Enterprise support Nagios is the de-facto standard for network monitoring for a reason. It is relatively easy to install, configure, and use. The community is the largest of the three, and it has both enterprise support and software editions. Although there isn’t anything exceedingly special about Nagios itself, it is solid across all categories. Shinken and Icinga tied at the bottom in the scoring rubric because they succeeded in different categories while others were complete downfalls. Icinga uses a lot of processing power in order to complete it’s checks, and process its data. Shinken, on the other hand, was easy to install but very difficult to administer and manage compared to the other two. The interface was by far the worst of the three and focused more on appearance than functionality. This project was not able to reach the scope needed to successfully test more features, such as advanced scalability. These Nagios alternatives may offer more advanced functionality than their spiritual predecessor, so in an enterprise environment the victor might be different. The rubric was designed to accurately measure the software based on the needs of the user. More weight was put into the performance usage than the other categories. These numbers are based on the opinions of the team members. The team behind this project is composed of 3 seniors pursuing their Computer Networking and System Administration degree at Michigan Technological University. They choose this project based on their strong interest in working with Linux, and their curiosity about alternatives to the very popular Nagios. Cons -Interface has little functionality -Configuration files are slightly more complex Nagios rewrite using Python. Cons ˗ Lots of network traffic ˗ High processing load Cons -Outdated Interface -No major upsides Nagios fork written in C. The original network monitoring suite written in C.