On Oct 7, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Nathan Gibbs wrote:
* Peter Wirdemo wrote:They do have prettier lights and a better band. However setting up thatIt's like an empty room here, I think they all went to the party at nagios ;-) /Peterkind of party is a bit more complicated than a mon party. Thats what got me started with this project. When I setup mon, it took me a couple of hours. I wasted a whole day trying to get nagios to do the same thing. mon is just simpler. One config file to name them all, One config file to mon them, One config file to alert when they fail, Multiple ways to ack them. :-)
Heh. I agree that mon's simplicity is a huge advantage. I'm using mon to stop certain services if a network connection fails. I do this by running a separate mon daemon on each machine. I suppose you could set up a separate Nagios on each machine, but wow, setting it up once is hard enough...
Actually, we use a centralized Nagios to be sure that all our mons are up and running. So there's some cooperation as well.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ mon mailing list email@example.com http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon