Nagios (or its new off-spring, Icinga) is the king of open source monitoring, and there are others like it. So what’s wrong with monitoring? Why does it bug me so?
Nagios is not the complete monitoring solution that many think it is because it can only mark the passing of a threshold: there is basically only two states: good and not good (ignoring “warning” and “unknown” for now).
What monitoring needs is two things: a) time, and b) flexibility.
Time is the ability to look at the change in a process or value over time. Disk I/O might or might not be high – but has it been high for the last twenty minutes or is it just on a peak? Has disk usage been slowly increasing or did it skyrocket in the last minute? This capability can be provided by tools like the System Event Correlator (SEC). The biggest problem with SEC is that it runs by scanning logs; if something isn’t logged SEC won’t see it.
The second thing is what drove me to write: there is no flexibility in these good/not-good checks that Nagios and its ilk provide. There is also not enough flexibility in SEC and others like it.
What is needed is a pattern recognition system – one that says, this load is not like the others that the system has experienced at this time in the past. If you look at a chart of system load on an average server (with users or developers on it) you’ll see that the load rises in the morning and decreases at closing time. When using Nagios, the load is either good or bad – with a single value. Yet a moderately heavy load could be a danger sign at 3 a.m. but not at 11 a.m. Likewise, having 30 users logged in is not a problem at 3 p.m. on a Tuesday – but could be a big problem at 3 p.m. on a Sunday.
What we really need is a learning system that can match the current information from the system with recorded information from the past – matched by time.
It’s always been said that open source is driven by someone “scratching an itch.” This sounds like mine…
UNIX Administratosphere 