You can’t argue with the pricing model of this though?  http://sourceforge.net/projects/zenoss/

 

 

From: nznog-bounces@list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces@list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Bill Walker
Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011 12:06 p.m.
To: nznog@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse

 

The Zenoss' pricing model didn't suit us and to get our hosts into there was going to take too long

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:49:07 +1000, Cameron wrote:

I’m also in a similar position.

 

I’m currently using Nagios + a large amount of customisation but I have a few requirements coming up that Nagios won’t be able to do. OpenNMS is looking like the likely candidate but I also want to evaluate Zenoss and Zabbix. I hadn’t seen them mentioned here yet so I thought I’d throw the names out and see if anyone has tried either of them at all. Scaling is the issue I guess, Nagios just does it so well.

 

Cameron

 


From: nznog-bounces@list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces@list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Jonathan Brewer
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 8:18 PM
To: nznog@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse

 

Hi Folks,

If you had it all to do over again, what would you use for network monitoring: Nagios, OpenNMS, or something else entirely?

I care about availaility, latency, loss, jitter, and trap handling for interface up/down, loss of power, etc. Sensible behavior in situations where parent routers/links are flapping is also important.

I would very much appreciate input from folks monitoring 1000+ network elements.

Cheers,

Jon

-------------------------------------
+64 27 502 8230
http://about.me/jonbrewer
-------------------------------------