These days, among the many projects I’m shuffling, monitoring is taking some rather significant brain cycles. In any operational environment, monitoring is the closest link between humans and machines, primarily because monitoring is one of the main channels machines use most often to talk to humans (terminal sessions notwithstanding).
In prior lives, Nagios has been one of the primary fault monitoring systems in use. It has a relatively long history as the monitoring workhorse in a large number of production environments, and with reason: high quality, open source, and free has meant easy adoption, especially in cash-conscious startups. It compiles on essentially all contemporary Unix-based platforms, and there is a significant knowledge base on and off the Intertron. It gets the job done. Add some good design to its configuration files and its management tools, and it’s top-notch. Minus, of course, its archaic web-based GUI. Details, details, details. Hyperic HQ is one of the monitoring tools I have been involved with most recently. Installation is relatively painless on both on the server and the client (and admittedly faster than that of getting Nagios up and running), it is pretty, sporting a modern, somewhat configurable interface, and offering features like autodiscovery out of the box.
A notable section in the Hyperic documentation is related to Nagios (Nagios Data), and the Hyperic HQ Tour also offers some comparative notes (PDF, page 5: “Hyperic HQ Compared to Nagios”). This is no coincidence: Nagios boasts a large installed base, and that makes it a tasty target to aim for (a seach for “Zenoss”, for instance, yields no results). The comparison is, by all accounts, fair. There is nothing misleading or dishonest in it, and Hyperic HQ is indeed superior to Nagios in many respects (particularly in terms of presentation). There are some points, however, where I am not quite synched up with the Hyperic story, but these are generally small (but by no means insignificant) details. For instance, I’m quite happy to have configuration data stored in plain text files when its complexity does not merit a RDBMS.
The one significant sticky point (which is not mentioned in the tour but that is prominently highlighted in the documentation) is the apparent lack of any passive-like monitoring in Hyperic (no NSCA or NCSA-like support). Personally, I am a big fan of passive monitoring: components perform self-monitoring duties and report back to central command as necessary. I have used it quite successfully to monitor scripts that run periodically and are unpokeable (think all those wonderful tools you’ve written that ship logs back and forth), NetApp filers (by proxy), and almost any kind of custom software. Nagios documentation does not do true justice to passive monitoring: it is mostly described as a way to build distributed monitoring or reach components behind firewalls. And yet, it is an incredibly elegant methodology to monitor components and to do so from within the components themselves asynchronously; by definition, it is highly distributed, making each component (or proxies on their behalf) responsible for its own health, and yielding Nagios a great alert, escalation and notification manager. Add powerful inheritance and the resulting monitoring setup is scalable, efficient, and straightforward to automate. It is still (no point in hiding it) ugly, but hard to beat.
While Hyperic HQ has a home for performance monitoring, my money is still on Nagios for fault monitoring. I will be learning a lot more about Hyperic HQ over the next few weeks, so I will likely have more details to report in future posts (I am seriously exploring what it would take to feed passive test results to Hyperic so they can be available in the Hyperic dashboard, for instance). Stay tuned.
