Nagios Conference 2007

  • 1,950 views
Uploaded 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 …

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.

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,950
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
61
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    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

Transcript

  • 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. Nagios Out-of-the-box • Only monitors part of network – Software-based services – Hardware via SNMP
  • 3. Structure of Modern Networks
  • 4. Need for Hardware Plugins • Necessary for total network coverage • Monitor non-network services • Take corrective action with hardware
  • 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. 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. Hardware-based Plugins • Handle complex interactions • Provide semantic meaning • Provide hardware-specific error messages
  • 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. Web Service Security • Use SSL channel (HTTPS) • Use HTTP authentication methods • No special firewall rules needed
  • 10. Vendor Value Proposition • Push complex monitoring to 3rd party • Support widely deployed monitoring app • Potential for community contributions
  • 11. Nagios Value Proposition • Total network coverage • Push development off to vendor • Competitive advantage against other monitoring applications
  • 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. Example Ontology of Actions
  • 14. Ontology Benefits • Common set of checks • Common set of corrective actions • Materialized by command definitions • Vendor interoperability • Minimized configuration
  • 15. Ontology Representation • Use W3C’s OWL standard • XSL transformation to command definitions • Vendors “plug-in” command, keep command name the same
  • 16. What Can Vendors Do? • Embrace open source • Use open interface – Can still shield proprietary internals • Produce open source plugins using interface
  • 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. 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. 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. 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. Acknowledgements • Nagios community • Netways • Servprise staff • Special thanks to: – Melanie Bolduc – Ethan Galstad