®



                    Nagios: A Framework for
                   Hardware-based Monitoring
                            ...
Nagios Out-of-the-box
• Only monitors part of network
  – Software-based services
  – Hardware via SNMP
Structure of Modern Networks
Need for Hardware Plugins
• Necessary for total network coverage


• Monitor non-network services


• Take corrective acti...
SNMP isn’t Enough
• Difficult for complex operations

• MIB management can be a hassle

• Security
  – Non-existent securi...
Nagios as Mediator
• Register event handlers with checks

• Execute event handlers due to
  checks

• Schedule checks base...
Hardware-based Plugins
• Handle complex interactions



• Provide semantic meaning



• Provide hardware-specific error me...
Web Service-enabled Hardware
• Standards-defined interface (W3C)

• Supports most modern programming
  languages

• Lower ...
Web Service Security
• Use SSL channel (HTTPS)



• Use HTTP authentication methods



• No special firewall rules needed
Vendor Value Proposition
• Push complex monitoring to 3rd party


• Support widely deployed monitoring
  app


• Potential...
Nagios Value Proposition
• Total network coverage

• Push development off to vendor

• Competitive advantage against other...
What Can Nagios Do?
• Can’t develop plugins for everything

• Register support with vendors

• Perhaps ship packaged up pl...
Example Ontology of Actions
Ontology Benefits
• Common set of checks

• Common set of corrective actions

• Materialized by command definitions

• Ven...
Ontology Representation
• Use W3C’s OWL standard

• XSL transformation to command
  definitions

• Vendors “plug-in” comma...
What Can Vendors Do?
• Embrace open source

• Use open interface
  – Can still shield proprietary internals


• Produce op...
Working with Nagios Community
• Users
  – Know what they want to use
  – Can offer great suggestions

• Developers
  – Kno...
Plugin Licensing
• Nagios is GPL

• Plugins are not necessarily derived works

• Plugins that do not use GPL code do not
 ...
Conclusion
• Lot of value for Nagios, vendors

• Symbiotic relationship between them

• Nagios can technically support ven...
References
Ernesto Damiani, Sabrina De Capitani di        Khoi Anh Phan, Zahir Tari, and Peter Bertok. A
    Vimercati, St...
Acknowledgements
• Nagios community
• Netways
• Servprise staff

• Special thanks to:
  – Melanie Bolduc
  – Ethan Galstad
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Nagios Conference 2007

2,008

Published on

A presentation I gave at NagiosKonferenz in Nuremberg in October, 2007. Here I discussed using Nagios as a framework for hardware-based monitoring and the necessary community interactions between proprietary hardware vendors and the open source Nagios community.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,008
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
63
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Explain who I amExplain what the talk is aboutExplain this is in conjunction with a paper and that I am looking for feedback
  • Nagios Conference 2007

    1. 1. ® Nagios: A Framework for Hardware-based Monitoring October 11, 2007 Kevin Menard Servprise International, Inc. kmenard@servprise.com +1 508.892.3823 x308
    2. 2. Nagios Out-of-the-box • Only monitors part of network – Software-based services – Hardware via SNMP
    3. 3. Structure of Modern Networks
    4. 4. Need for Hardware Plugins • Necessary for total network coverage • Monitor non-network services • Take corrective action with hardware
    5. 5. SNMP isn’t Enough • Difficult for complex operations • MIB management can be a hassle • Security – Non-existent security until SNMPv3 – May require holes in firewall • Need hardware-specific plugins
    6. 6. Nagios as Mediator • Register event handlers with checks • Execute event handlers due to checks • Schedule checks based on event handlers • Simple checks, simple event handlers
    7. 7. Hardware-based Plugins • Handle complex interactions • Provide semantic meaning • Provide hardware-specific error messages
    8. 8. Web Service-enabled Hardware • Standards-defined interface (W3C) • Supports most modern programming languages • Lower cost of client support • Lower cost for client development
    9. 9. Web Service Security • Use SSL channel (HTTPS) • Use HTTP authentication methods • No special firewall rules needed
    10. 10. Vendor Value Proposition • Push complex monitoring to 3rd party • Support widely deployed monitoring app • Potential for community contributions
    11. 11. Nagios Value Proposition • Total network coverage • Push development off to vendor • Competitive advantage against other monitoring applications
    12. 12. What Can Nagios Do? • Can’t develop plugins for everything • Register support with vendors • Perhaps ship packaged up plugins – Simpler for end users • Develop an ontology of actions
    13. 13. Example Ontology of Actions
    14. 14. Ontology Benefits • Common set of checks • Common set of corrective actions • Materialized by command definitions • Vendor interoperability • Minimized configuration
    15. 15. Ontology Representation • Use W3C’s OWL standard • XSL transformation to command definitions • Vendors “plug-in” command, keep command name the same
    16. 16. What Can Vendors Do? • Embrace open source • Use open interface – Can still shield proprietary internals • Produce open source plugins using interface
    17. 17. Working with Nagios Community • Users – Know what they want to use – Can offer great suggestions • Developers – Know Nagios internals – Can offer technical support • Neither are obligated – Quid pro quo
    18. 18. Plugin Licensing • Nagios is GPL • Plugins are not necessarily derived works • Plugins that do not use GPL code do not need to be GPL • Non-open source unlikely to succeed, but doable
    19. 19. Conclusion • Lot of value for Nagios, vendors • Symbiotic relationship between them • Nagios can technically support vendors, needs to support them at higher level • Vendors need to work with Nagios community • End users win
    20. 20. References Ernesto Damiani, Sabrina De Capitani di Khoi Anh Phan, Zahir Tari, and Peter Bertok. A Vimercati, Stefano Paraboschi, and benchmark on soap’s transport protocols Pierangela Samarati. Fine grained access performance for mobile applications. In SAC control for soap e-services. In WWW ’01: ’06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on Applied computing, pages conference on World Wide Web, pages 1139–1144, New York, NY, USA, 2006. 504–513, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM ACM Press. Press. John Soldatos and Dimitris Alexopoulos. Web The Apache Software Foundation. Apache services-based network management: license, version 2.0, 2004. approaches and the wsnet system. Int. J. Netw. Manag., 17(1):33–50, 2007. Free Software Foundation Inc. Gnu general public license, version 2, 1991. Douglas B. Terry and Venugopalan Ramasubramanian. Caching xml web Paul Fremantle, Sanjiva Weerawarana, and services for mobility. Queue, 1(3):70–78, 2003. Rania Khalaf. Enterprise services. Commun. ACM, 45(10):77–82, 2002. Robert van Engelen. Code generation Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, techniques for developing lightweight xml web services for embedded devices. In SAC and John Vlissides. Design Patterns: ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented symposium on Applied computing, pages Software. Addison Wesley, 1995. 854–861, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. Bruce Perens. Open standards: Principles and practices.
    21. 21. Acknowledgements • Nagios community • Netways • Servprise staff • Special thanks to: – Melanie Bolduc – Ethan Galstad
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×