Jonah KowallNagios is a great product, it’s free, you can’t beat that. The problem is that the level of usability and sophistication of the product is pretty much zero. Don’t expect any bells and whistles, or really any usability for that matter. The technology is rudimentary at best, but it can get the job done with the right skills on staff.
Many vendors have introduced products which make Nagios more usable, these improve the product itself, the supportability, and the fact that you can get support when things break. The problem is that the underpinning and ugliness still exist once you get through the layers intended to cover up the mess that Nagios is. There are still scripted “checks” which run to determine service health, the checks are normally challenging to manage, especially when some execute through the agent, while others do not. Other features added include better management, dash boarding, and other basic capabilities that you would expect out of the box with any monitoring product.
The problem with all of these approaches is that they don’t auto-configure themselves, they don’t detect application instances properly or consistently, and configuration of checks is painful. Most clients using Nagios will hear me tell them to ditch it, and go for a simple and inexpensive monitoring tool. I hear from many Gartner clients who decide to implement open source tools based on a talented engineer on the team, but when he leaves the company no one can figure out how to safely upgrade nagios or it’s associated components (This article goes through some of what is needed to manage Nagios : http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/nagiosinstall.htm)
The time and effort needed to manage this software is much better spent buying a simple monitoring tool to get the basics covered for infrastructure health. Once you lick the easy stuff, infrastructure health monitoring, you can start focusing on the harder problems. Application performance monitoring (APM) tools are where most interest is since they facilitate end user experience monitoring, in depth troubleshooting capabilities, and provide much greater business value to the non-technical users.
Category: IT Operations Monitoring Tags:
40 responses so far ↓
1 Paul De Audney February 22, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Combine Nagios with a modern configuration management tool like Chef or Puppet and you can have your monitoring sensors automatically applied to your running Nagios configuration when you use either tool to build out your infrastructure when hosts are deployed.
Additionally Nagios is widely used and it is easy to find people with significant experience using and optimizing it.
While it is not the greatest monitoring tool out there, there are many add-ons that go a long way to make it significantly better than commercial offerings. Not to mention the integrations that can be achieved quite easily (shutting down a host for a scheduled reboot? Have the host notify the nagios server of the downtime while it is shutting its services down.)
You can configure nagios with service dependencies so when a fault occurs inside your infrastructure, you only get alerts to the actual fault. This does take some thought, blindly following a guide designed to get a newbie setup with Nagios isn’t going to result in a good example.
Have you ever actually configured nagios with any of these integrations? I am yet to see a commercial tool with the flexibility that can be achieved with nagios and a little bit of scripting and experience in current system administration practices.
2 Jonah Kowall February 22, 2013 at 9:29 pm
While I agree that it can be effective in controlled smaller environments this is not the situation in most enterprises. The skills needed to set it up, manage it, and build that level of standardization and control is not normally feasible. Each admin sets it up differently in terms of the scripts used, not unlike puppet patterns or chef recepies. This is the root of the problem, the sysadmin over customizes the monitoring to do things better suited for other tools, hence over extending a product which has scalability issues.
You can configure dependencies which are single tree, but that’s unrealistic as well since we have multiple levels of dependencies which modern monitoring tools will detect automatically especially from the network topology, or virtualization dependencies.
I have configured Nagios before, and even in production environments, but it was easily replaced with much more simplistic tools for small amounts of money.
3 James February 25, 2013 at 3:24 pm
this depends on what you consider “small amounts of money”. Being in the industry I know there is virtually no such thing. At the Nagios Conference last year it was also revealed one of the largest insurance companies in the USA uses Nagios. They have it monitoring 1.25 million devices and it doing it well. There was another person monitoring million as well. This article is highly inaccurate and has nothing to offer fact wise.
4 James February 25, 2013 at 3:25 pm
You can also get support for free via Nagios Ent. or purchase a support contract so it is supported if you want it to be. FYI. Fact checking is a good thing before writing an article.
5 Jonah Kowall February 25, 2013 at 3:38 pm
You can get good monitoring products for anywhere from $2-$20 per device (at small scale) that work well enough, they are not sophisticated but functional and automated.
Nagios with agent architecture (SNMP can scale better) does not scale, the check architecture just cannot handle volumes. I’m sure the large implementations have done the following:
1. not using agents with checks
2. changed the code to optimize it
3. are using a lot of hardware to scale the solution
If you want to dispute my facts, I speak with well over 100 clients per year using Nagios, this is what I hear from clients. These are clearly issues with the product, as well as maintaining the product after the engineer with expertise leaves the company. I don’t just hear these things a handful of times, they come up regularly.
I wrote a detailed note a year ago outlining support options for Nagios, not to mention there have been modifications done to the product to help correct some of these issues by those companies. Regardless the product is still pretty poor, everyone agrees with that statement.
Thanks for the comments, and nice job hiding your identity
6 James February 25, 2013 at 4:31 pm
With Millions of users world wide you speaking in absolutes about what every one agrees with is a pretty poor statement for an analyst. The agents do scale better than SNMP. Nagios XI has the ability to monitor via SNMP and WMI. The agents scale far better. Nagios Core, what your talking about also has the ability to monitor via SNMP. Again, you should fact check before making statements in absolutes.
Maybe your talking to the wrong people. If you talked to MTV, Mcafee, Toshiba, Johns Hopkins, Universal, Yahoo, Siemens, Sony and much more they might tell you different.
7 Ethan February 25, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Are you referring to Nagios XI, Nagios Fusion, Nagios Core, or something else altogether? As the research director, I would have thought you’d investigate what you write about, rather than making broad-reaching statements that come off as uninformed to the knowledgeable IT person.
Nagios Core by itself may not be terribly user-friendly to non-technical folks, but there are thousands of addons developed by the community that make it work well. Nagios XI has an extremely intuitive interface and makes configuration (and auto-discovery) easy.
8 James E February 25, 2013 at 9:13 pm
You really need to do some more research.
Nagios XI is EXTREMELY easy to use and configure. Actually the latest version of Nagios XI pretty much negates all arguments you put forth.
9 Phil February 25, 2013 at 9:14 pm
What a load of piffle!
We use Nagios to monitor thousands of services on around 500 hosts without any problems.
The ability to write and deploy one’s own plugins put it streets ahead of the dumbed-down point & click windows products, which never quite seem to do what I want.
10 PapaLinux February 25, 2013 at 9:22 pm
I will resume this comment, Nagios is:
Flexible, avalible for being installed in any linux distribution from repositories and from source code, you can develop your own plugins, you can obtain information by snmp, wmi, agents. There are a lot of plugins and addons available at nagios website ready for being implemented.
And if we talk about Nagios XI, any guy with a simple intuition can configure any device for being monitored.
11 James E February 25, 2013 at 9:24 pm
I also enjoy how you use the term “geeky Linux guy”. You are basically writing this article to a bunch of windows admins who have no concept of how to configure a host check beyond clicking next, next, finish. (not all are that way)
Please stop basing your articles on information from 10 years ago just in case someone actually takes you seriously.
12 Rodrigo February 25, 2013 at 9:38 pm
I dont understand, I have two customers that use 10000 checks with Nagios XI. First version that they used and not ask help to use Nagios XI. Is very easy. I don’t Agree.
13 Luka February 25, 2013 at 11:10 pm
My company is a Nagios reseller and integrator and we have around 10 Nagios implementations so-far.
We have done SWOT analysis of various monitoring software in terms of performance, price, features and other categories, and Nagios scored very high (second).
Although I definitely agree it’s a “hackish” software, at least in it’s Core version, it’s extremely useful, flexible and does not take a huge amount of administration and knowledge. Typical Unix admin can get the basics in a week for sure…
Some of your points are invalid, but it is obvious that you’re referring to Nagios Core, not Nagios XI (btw, I like Nagios Core more)…
We have couple of 200+ hosts and 2000+ services implementations with *minor* tweaks and they run perfectly on a 4-core VM!
It’s true, however, that Nagios Inc. should invest more time not on usability only, but in being an “enterprise-accepted” company. Not having *official* Windows agent (NSClient is not official, it’s third party), necessity of compiling packages for virtually every Unix out there (please, create *official* and approved packages and versions) and some minor issues with Nagios XI (bugs, immaturity) give impression of immature and “hack-your-own-tool” software.
14 Kevin J February 25, 2013 at 11:59 pm
This is why I don’t trust Gartner! They do publish good research if you pay for a membership – again if you pay and can afford to. I’ve installed Nagios Core and used NConf to configure it in dozens of locations cheaper and more scalable than most other tool that claim to be good enterprise tools for a decent price with a per agent cost by the way. One instance I setup watches over 100K services with 2 minute checks on a small VM. A good “geeky Linux guy” can make a wimpy VW Bug into a jet powered racer with ease and there are plenty of us out there!!! The custom scripting to extend monitors make the system not only robust to be able to handle custom scripts but also let’s you quickly extend functionality without waiting for vendors to do so.
15 Mike February 26, 2013 at 12:13 am
Hi Luka, a windows version of XI will happen eventually I would think. We are still a young company and have plenty of growing to do. NsClient is a community project though it is a very good nagios project that Nagios Ent. provides funds for. NsClient I believe was also originally created by Ethan (Nagios creator) and is now maintained by a well known Nagios community member. As a partner you will be notified if any of this changes. And it could soon
16 Mike February 26, 2013 at 12:20 am
I too am saddened by the quality of this post. I would think that the director of IT of all people would know this was poor quality. Maybe that’s the secret to success. If you want to be the most widely used monitoring solution it has to be poor quality. If you want to be a very well known analyst firm you need to post articles of poor quality. According to Gartner any way.
17 Jonah Kowall February 26, 2013 at 1:19 am
James : I have requested briefings on Nagios XI several times, and I have not been briefed properly. I have also spoken with happy and unhappy customers of yours.
Mike : The trick to being widely used is being free and extensible, the issue is that most users of the products agree the product is quite poor and could use major improvements. There aren’t any stellar monitoring tools out there from a general health monitoring perspective, so why bother paying for it? Someone will fix this and get the proper product on the market, but today for system monitoring it doesn’t exist.
If you trust Gartner or not, we have the most conversations with builders and implementers of IT products, hence we have a wider viewpoint than other 3rd parties have. You can agree or disagree with my opinions, I’m not going to debate you on a technology war especially not in public, since frankly it’s not constructive. The solution for one situation is not the same for other situations, hence providing customized advice is the value.
These statements are around Nagios core, and not the commercial offerings which extend the core processing functionality.
18 Johannes Dagemark February 26, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Constructive critisism is always a good thing, taking about things one do not understand, well perhaps not so much.
If I were a windows admin on a small company I would not use Nagios either, there are plenty of good tools that would take you to an acceptable level of monitoring in a much more userfriendly and easy way.
But for medium to large companies with linux competence inhouse I have yet to find a monitoring tool that flexible, feature complete and most important of all as high performing that Nagios is.
Do you know of another monitoring tool that can monitor 1.25 milion devices? I dont..
19 Ashley February 26, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Wonder how many of these comments are from Nagios employees/resellers?
20 James February 26, 2013 at 3:45 pm
I appreciate your comments Jonah. You haven’t asked for a briefing though, FYI. I’ve quoted you below:
The management team at Nagios doesn’t really speak with analysts or really do any effective marketing, It’s of no cost for a vendor to brief analysts, and all of them should do so. Normally I request briefings when clients ask about products, but I haven’t had a client ask about XI yet!
We had RedMonk at our conference as well. They wrote positively on our behalf several times now.
21 Luis February 27, 2013 at 12:06 am
Hi,
I’ve being using Nagios Core and XI, they are both great products, even I have compared them with other solutions, and it’s amazing how flexible it’s Nagios. Being objective, before deploy a ANY TOOL read the instructions, it’s not good to say that the product is bad if you don’t know how to implement it
.
If you a Windows Admin, I really know how you would feel trying to make work a solution like Nagios on Linux
, remember if a tool offers me a lot of stuff like Nagios, I stay with Nagios.
22 Jonah Kowall February 27, 2013 at 1:49 am
James, I have 3 emails proving I did in fact ask for briefings! Please set one up.
http://www.gartner.com/technology/about/vendor_briefings.jsp
23 Raul February 28, 2013 at 9:57 am
I think that the problem with Nagios is even worse.
Even if it were as scalable, flexible and usable as some commenters claim, the problem with Nagios is that the aim of the product is to monitor devices instead of business services.
This clearly limits the value users obtain from it. And it makes harder to evolve (I know this for experience) once the IT department matures and decides to go to the next level, id est, BSM.
Nagios (and other similar solutions, for free or not) makes IT the center (inside-out approach) when the business should be the core (outside-in approach, see Ian Clayton blog which is great) of a monitoring project.
Of course, IT geeks will be delighted with Nagios approach and would never understand this until it is late. That’s why CIO involvement is required.
In any case, we at Tango/04 have done “upgrades” of Nagios and in other cases we just put us on top of it as part of a BSM project.
24 James February 28, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Raul – You should look at Nagios’ BPI component. It’s built for business process monitoring. BPI stands for Business Process Intelligence. Nagios Core is supposed to be an engine for monitoring. The adons and components are what make it what it is. There are a ton of different front ends out there. I’m confused… It’s so horrible that you use it as your internal engine?
25 Raul February 28, 2013 at 8:56 pm
I don’t use, some customers of us use it and keep it and some others prefer to just replace it completely. We may sit on top of Nagios or any other infrastructure monitoring solution, or just use our stuff.
I agree that there could be a lot of front ends out there, and I suppose it is a good thing. In that regard, even Tango/04 could be considered kind of a front end.
Still, in my experience Nagios is being use widely for infrastructure monitoring mostly. Inside-out approach.
And I never said Nagios is horrible, James.
26 Rodney March 6, 2013 at 1:41 am
This kind of article is from people that have never worked with a IT monitoring tool. People that has never support their clients with fast and cheap solutions. People who think that the more expencive the better solution, because in this way they seem more important for the company, as they are responsible for expensive budgets. People that are not worried to do a good job, but that want just appear to the others.
I worked with monitoring tools for almost 20 years, and I consider Nagios one of the best, mainly because its flexibility. I´ve already worked with a lot of commercial tools and all of them, with no exception, are complex, inflexible, expensives, with a lot of bugs and bring almost no return to the company. For all of them we must hire a team of experts, what make the solution more expensive.
I´ve never believe in Gartener articles or recomendations and after this articles I believe less than ever.
P.S.: I´m not a Nagios employee or reseller.
27 Jonah Kowall March 6, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Rodney, I’ve actually implemented well over 100 tools in production environments and have worked in IT for 17 years as an end user (such as yourself). While I agree Nagios is cheap, it’s not \fast\ compared to many lighter-weight tools. I disagree with you on the point of expensive = good, and normally I recommend easy tools to clients.
Aside from my end user experiences I speak with well over 600 end user client organizations who are Gartner clients. I hear these comments overwhelmingly from them. They are normally using Nagios due to cost, but it doesn’t provide what they need. Many of them realize that the cost of maintaining and managing the product is higher than easier tools on the market.
On another note there have been some nasty NRPE exploits circulating on some message boards, I would patch!
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/120507/Nagios-NRPE-2.13-Code-Execution.html
28 Ross Fomerand March 13, 2013 at 8:01 pm
“These statements are around Nagios core, and not the commercial offerings which extend the core processing functionality”
Glad you were able to clear that up for your readers AFTER the fact in the comments section. How about you edit the article now to include exactly which nagios product you are referring to before you lose even more credibility.
Since your focus seems to be on open source monitoring technologies; I expect to see an article soon about how crippled the Zenoss open source version is out of the box. Looking forward to it.
29 C. Mansfeldt March 18, 2013 at 8:54 am
“If you don’t take my advice I will probably be talking to them 3 years later when the “geeky Linux guy” leaves the company and no one can figure out how to upgrade nagios”
I am not sure where your hate or anger is coming from, but please don’t denigrate an entire group of professionals because of it.
If you had a shred of validity in your argument, you lost all credibility when you insulted the people who work hard to bring a solution to our employers that costs them nothing. Good job in alienating whatever audience you may hope to gain.
-CM
30 Jonah Kowall March 19, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Thanks for the comment Ross, I actually see more successful customers using Zenoss core (open source) versus Nagios (open source). There are commercial offerings on both camps which improve the situation.
31 Jonah Kowall March 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm
No hate or anger here C. Mansfeldt, I speak to clients using Nagios who are happy as well, but I do get many calls from clients who’ve ended up with an unsupportable, and insecure monitoring system. If you don’t keep the systems and packages up to date it moves towards disrepair.
32 Eric Anderson March 28, 2013 at 3:43 pm
We’ve seen a lot of migrations from Nagios to CopperEgg as people move into more dynamic environments (like public/private clouds). I think in general people are tired of the old clumsy monitoring tools and ready for a next-generation tool that looks and feels the way the rest of their applications and tools work.
33 CopperEgg vs Nagios: Installation guide, maintenance and price April 3, 2013 at 4:06 pm
[...] seen here in a Gartner blog post: “Most clients using Nagios [Core] will hear me tell them to ditch it, and go for a simple and [...]
34 Andreas Ericsson April 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Hi there. I’m one of the current maintainers. I work for a company reselling Nagios-based solutions.
As for usability of basic Nagios core, I must say you’re right. It does have quite a steep learning curve. For vendors, that’s awesome though, because we can easily bridge the gap so anyone can (and do) manage it.
As for performance, I can only assume you haven’t tested the latest and greatest, or that you failed really hard in setting it up. My test-configuration a quarter of a million points of measurement (“services”, in nagios terms). I run that on my laptop for several hours every day, with no latency, having Nagios eat somewhere between 8-15% of my cpu and about 250mb of ram. Watching a youtube clip uses about the same resources.
You’re also talking about “service level management” and how Nagios lacks it, which tells me quite clearly that you’ve either never worked in a large enough network, or that it was years and years ago since you did things like that. I’m guessing you’ve forgot the roles in an organisation that benefit from monitoring. I’ll run them down for you here, as I’ve done in dozens of presentations over the years.
First off, there’s the admins. They need to know within a reasonable timeframe (ie, as soon as possible) when something breaks down. If they don’t, they can’t do their job, and the company grinds to a halt before someone notices that the inhouse thingumabob has gone AWOL. Their only reason for knowing which (user-level) services are affected is so they can prioritize what to do first when too large a pile of crap hits the fan.
Second, there’s the internal IT support staff. They really need to know *why* people can’t send email, and when that’s intended to be fixed. They really don’t care if it’s because a router is sending all packets to the printer or because the DNS is down; They just want something to say on the phone.
Third, there’s the CIO and CTO. They really want to know the availability of the (user-level) services so they can present shiny graphs to their bosses so they can prove that their hard work provides improvements so they can get their annual bonuses.
Fourth, and last, there’s the CEO and CFO, who just want to know exacly how much money everything’s costing and which contracts they can eliminate without it costing them more than they save. They like hard numbers on that sort of thing. And graphs. Everyone who is too incompetent at a real craft to wear what they like to work enjoys looking at shiny graphics, it seems.
The point is that the only way you can achieve all of the above is to start from the ground up and then aggregate information for whoever’s looking at it. But in order to start from the ground up, the tool doing the watching has to know what to watch, in as much detail as you want to be able to read it.
Given how obvious it is that computers should support humans rather than the other way around, and given how important all of the above humans are to any IT-based organisation, I have a hard time understanding where your rant comes from.
Oh, and for comparison; Paying 2-20 dollars per device you want to monitor (what’s that for btw? per month? per year?) is quite a lot of money compared to what it would cost to hire a consultant to set up Nagios for you.
As for huge companies monitoring their huge networks; No, they don’t modify Nagios’ code. NASA doesn’t sit down and hack around in Nagios’ core to watch their 10k-node supercomputer clusters. They do stay in touch with the Nagios developers to figure out how to make the most of it though, and they investigate addons designed specifically to increase robustness and performance. In comparison to (insert random database here), people spend significantly *less* time getting Nagios to perform than they do on (insert same database here).
So, while you do have some valid points regarding usability, most of your essay seems to be taken out of thin air, or done as a weekend project by a fifth-grader. I would really have expected a grown man who claims to have been an IT professional for 17 years to do their homework better.
35 Jonah Kowall April 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Andreas, I believe that when you add in technologies such as the vendor you work for that the solution becomes infinitely more manageable and handles a lot of the downsides within the open source technology itself. The agents used by Nagios are still lacking configuration management, proper policy management, and patch management. This means you must either use additional tools to manage those elements or buy a commercial product which helps handle the shortcomings within the architecture.
I have implemented your product, open source products, and other similar Nagios based solutions.
When speaking about SLA management, it’s not just about managing SLAs (which Nagios does in fact do) its about managing, correlating, and understanding topologies of systems, networks, and other elements (storage, virtualization, etc). While your product handles those, the open source product lacks topology understand and event management across those elements.
If you are claiming that monitoring tools that do not provide APM technologies (such as Nagios) are relevant to the C level executives that’s clearly not the case, although the operations team will build these dashboards the metrics are meaningless without looking at actual end user experience.
Most businesses do modify the check code (or even use various overlapping check code) in place, and create management issues, this is something I hear from clients regularly. While they aren’t modifying core Nagios code, they are modifying other parts of the codebase.
I’m not responding to your personal attacks here, that’s simply false and non-constructive. Tell Jan I send my regards
36 Micheal D jackson April 26, 2013 at 5:17 am
Agreed with the responses….couple it with any solid configuration management framework with automation scripts Nagios checks automatically deploy themselves!! I don’t think I’ve had to manually deploy checks in a year and I’ve deployed over 400 servers
.
Really it’s how you design your foundation from the ground….not just the tools themselves.
37 Florian Heigl May 6, 2013 at 11:39 pm
I read your article and I pretty much wonder whether you have really followed the development in Nagios’ ecosystem after 2009.
Much of the things you state don’t hold any more these days, especially w/re of autodetection / config management.
I’ll just say Check_MK.
I’ll not say that people drive their nagios config from NATIVE access to IPAM or CMDB with very light scripting. I’ll not say rule based configuration. I’ll not say anomaly alerting. I’ll not say trend monitoring.
I’ll say that that’s just one of multiple projects that are moving the Nagios concept where it wasn’t expected to go.
I’ve seen Nagios instances that ONLY monitor business KPIs instead of technical infrastructure. It’s a matter of creativity and flexibility, and Naigos has enough of the latter.
Yes, plain Nagios is stuck where it was in 2003, but who cares anymore? It’s 2013 and we’re far beyond that point.
Sorry, “Gartner”, but you slept at the wheel.
38 Michael May 16, 2013 at 4:52 am
We monitor clinical health system enterprise solutions for hundreds of hospitals across the US using simply Nagios core. It’s far superior to any clinical vendor software that I have seen, highly flexible and allows for business intelligence alert capabilities. You just have to understand the basic framework and build it properly. From that point on, expanding the solution or adding additional services is extremely easy to run, manage, and deploy. If you’re looking for a solid monitoring platform and you happen to read this article, don’t be fooled!
39 Todd May 18, 2013 at 4:09 pm
We have been using Nagios core for 5 years to monitor our data center. Before we used several other solutions but got tired of the high price and lack of flexibility. You could monitor services or hardware setting, but they didn’t allow you to monitor both a Postfix mail queue and a Windows mail queue, a MySQL server and SQL. They didn’t allow you set custom alerts based on the server and services. We can create custom logons for our clients so they only see their servers. The list goes on….
Nagios is without a doubt one of the most flexible monitoring solutions available.
It is Stable, require few resources, the web interface is easy to understand though not glamorous. And it has NEVER broken in 5 yrs.
Ask yourself one question. Why would I pay for a product and expect less?
In the future do your research before you post articles.
The simple fact that most every response to this article denies your “opinion” rather than thanks you for the info should is very telling.
NOTE: I am not a programer or even a Linux guy, 90% Windows But I setup and run our SLES based Nagios and have maintained it with little effort including the updates for 5 years.
40 Jonah Kowall May 20, 2013 at 9:12 pm
@florian – Indeed and I speak to Nagios users (happy and not daily). The fact that you are speaking about CMDBs shows you haven’t been following the industry trends away from such technologies, but they are in use in many enterprises with lackluster successes.
@Michael – Agreed its flexible, and customizable, but the cost of doing so, upgrading it, maintaining it, and securing it are elusive to most shops without expertise on staff. Over time that staff often changes roles leaving the abandoned monitoring in place. This can result in compromised systems, and missed alerts (among various other issues) I hear from clients on a regular basis. It looks and works great on day 1, but after day 1000 the product is not always so.
@todd there are many products which can do so without agents easily, Nagios is one choice, but it comes with risks. If you read carefully, I’m not saying get rid of all Nagios based technology, I’m saying the open source product has major support headaches. I alos notice as many others who have posted here that you enjoy slamming my “research” but I speak with more Nagios users that you can imagine, and having implemented open source and closed source monitoring technologies for 15 years before joining Gartner I have plenty of battleground experience (and scripting experience across multiple tools and languages). My opinion is based on thousands of discussions with clients, and dealing with hundreds of vendor solutions, hence my opinion is likely well informed. This is the reason clients come to Gartner for advise.
Leave a Comment