Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

What Do You Use for SNMP Monitoring? 103

linuxi386 wonders: "My company is in the process of implementing a global frame relay system. The network will cover 20+ states, and several European and Asian countries and Australia. It will have a 5 point full mesh fail-over with each coast/country having about 20 ppp links about 30 servers mixed between linux and windows plus a 2003 domain controller at each site. I have been looking for a really decent cheap web based monitoring application to maintain the entire system. So far I have looked at Solarwind's Orion and Adventnet's Opmanager. I like the look of Orion, but while I prefer the feature base of Opmanager, I cannot stand its pricing model or the XP playskool style theme it uses. I am trying to avoid writing my own system to manage this if at all possible. What would you folks recommend and why?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Do You Use for SNMP Monitoring?

Comments Filter:
  • I'm not very familiar with the other 2, but I believe Netreo is in the same space... it's what UC Irvine uses, I think.
  • Cacti! (Score:5, Informative)

    by sampowers ( 54424 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @12:56AM (#16064235)
    We have a medium sized setup and for us, Cacti works great. []
    • Re:Cacti! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by merreborn ( 853723 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @01:05AM (#16064269) Journal
      I've found Munin much easier to configure and extend than cacti.

      Quite frankly, I found cacti's interface, abstractions, and terminology very difficult to grasp.

      Munin, on the other hand, I've written a half dozen plugins for.

      Admittedly, cacti is more powerful, but that didn't do me much good, as I couldn't for the life of me harness that power.
      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I haven't seen Munin myself, but I'll go check it out cause I'm in the middle of configuring various monitoring myself.

        Here I've got FreeBSD boxes with the ports of Nagios and Cacti running, very easy to get setup through ports. Cacti I admit has a learning curve, but the forums are fantastic. This post in particular is a good starting point []

        If you are shy of trying to create your own scripts, just look for one that is similar and edit it. There is ex
      • I've never setup Cacti before, or even seen it. Just last Tuesday, I installed an Unbuntu system, and put Cacti on it, all in about 4 hours. It took a bit to see how things were done in Cacti (managing users and trees, putting graphs in the correct tree etc.) but a little google, and I had that all figured out.

        I'm now using it to monitor my lan/wan, and am setting up server monitoring next week. I found Cacti easy to install/manage, and I the managers of the various groups in the office like it, as they can
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by lanner ( 107308 )
      I use Cacti too, both for personal use as well as at the workplace. We monitor Cisco routers, Linux systems, Windows systems, Network Appliance Storage Filers, Cisco PIX firewalls, and a few other miscellaneous things. At a previous employer of mine, we had about 200 different devices being polled.

      You can write your own scripts to poll items via the command line or SNMP, and then create your graph templates to draw the graphs the way you want.

      One of the best features about Cacti is that you can create tem
    • by jzono1 ( 772920 )
      Munin is nifty, I use it for monitoring my home network, you can easily spot irregularities.
  • by Knetzar ( 698216 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @01:01AM (#16064251)
    Just google for "full mesh fail-over" "ppp links", wait, forget that....
  • What we use (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08, 2006 @01:16AM (#16064296)
    I'm posting as an AC so I don't break any I.P. and/or NDA's.

    At the companies I've worked at, we have typically started with the free monitoring software package Nagios and after a shortperiod of time, purchased the commercial product NetCool. NetCool is everything you could ever ask for... assuming you have a few months to tweak the rules to set the event levels correctly... But I guess all monitoring systems are like that.

    Depending on the size of your NOC, your datacenter, and your client base, I would recommend starting with Nagios and, if it proves to be too small for your needs, move the NetCool. (Just be prepared to pay serious $$$ for NetCool)


    • Re:What we use (Score:5, Informative)

      by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @01:55AM (#16064402) Homepage Journal
      Yup, Nagios is great, and you can customize it to work on anything. I dont see a reason to buy an expensive professional enterprise solution when Nagios is an enterprise solution.

      Plus when you start using it, you find your self adding new scripts to monitor more and more because its that easy. I'm using it to monitor tcp/udp ports, processes, oracle rac instanaces, oracle queues, swiftmq queues, hardware nics, hardware stats, memory/cpu/etc, log sizes, etc.

      So, not sure why I'd buy Netcool when Nagios is free, and works great. The time you spend configuring Nagios is cheap and easy. And it works with netexpert too.

      I like having a nice dashboard for my NOC, so they can keep a good eye on the health of a service, without lots of training.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dr_d_19 ( 206418 )

        So, not sure why I'd buy Netcool when Nagios is free, and works great. The time you spend configuring Nagios is cheap and easy. And it works with netexpert too.

        Considering that your time is not free, I think you've answered your own question. I love open source, but in most project where I have been involved where the choice between open source (as in at no cost) and closed software (as in, pay up) the difference in TCO is often minimal. I think people should stop using license costs as a way to promote ope

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by macdaddy ( 38372 )
          The problem is you can't extend NetCool or the other closed source apps to anything other than what they've allowed you to monitor. I'm monitoring the state of BGP peering sessions with Nagios. Try doing that with NetCool. Sometimes you don't get what you pay for. Sometimes you have to use a little of your own ingenuity.
          • On a personal level, there are a number of times where I would much rather spend the extra couple hundred bucks to get someone else to do the work for me... spending $50 bucks to get H&R Block to do my taxes is a really good example of this.

            On a business level, your time, or the time of the company's employees, is a resource. If you really have nothing better to do than write custom scripts for an open source application, then that's fine. But as a manager-type, would I rather pay you $30/hr over a cou

            • by macdaddy ( 38372 )
              That's a good point. It's worth noting though that Ethan Galstad, the author of Nagios, will take on custom tasks on a contract development basis. I'm in a fortunate position where I'm the netadm and sysadm (ie Nagios user and maintainer). I can usually whip out a script in an hour or two.
              • Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE Open Source proponent. I've been using Linux since 98. Started with RedHat, quickly ditched that in favour of Slackware, and only recently moved to KUbuntu. I've also made scripts to do automatic polling and webpage generation using MRTG.

                People with the ability and time should *definitely* go for open source, as it's the best compromise between rolling your own and buying proprietary. Not everyone is lucky enough to work in a position where their job is basically feast-or-fam

          • Obviously you've never worked with Netcool. It's as simple as it is with Nagios, you write a script that either spits out an SNMP trap, or updates the omnibus database; perl and DBD::Sybase will do the trick easy.
            • by macdaddy ( 38372 )
              I wouldn't really call either option as easy as Nagios. I don't have to post modifications to the DB in Nagios for an external script to function. I also don't have to add functionality to my scripts to generate a SNMP trap. All I have to do is return a numeric response to the calling process. Often times this is the output of the command you're running anyway. Still it does sound like NetCool is extensible. I'll have to give it a try when time permits. As always, each to their own.
        • by jschrod ( 172610 )
          While I agree with your principal sentiment, the configuration cost is not an argument either. (Usually the user interfaces for non-experts are much better in proprietary software.) Proprietary products must be configured as well, and configuration of proprietary tools like Tivoli, Unicenter, or OpenView needs as much work as Nagios' setups do. I worked with all of them, and can assert that.

          Nevertheless, the feature list check should be a first look, that is a given. For example, the OP gave the impressio

      • by Bandman ( 86149 )
        I use it to monitor server room temp and various database archive logs, too. If the primary and backup DBs arn't looking for the same file, something is wrong, and throw an alert :)

        I *heart* Nagios (and MRTG, which I use for even more)
      • Because Netcool does much of what you describe, right out of the box. It has a spiffy Win32 client. It has a slick Web dashboard. It does amazing jobs correlating events. It just works.
      • What version of Swift are you using Nagios to monitor and are you doing queue length monitors? We are on Version 6 of swift and outside of process monitors i don't see how to use our nagios instance to monitor that app (outside of custom scripts that execute their cli system to return values that we look for in nagios).
    • What was wrong with Nagios that you decided to go with NetCool?
      • What was wrong with Nagios that you decided to go with NetCool?

        I guess:

        Nagios is targeted at companies up to the medium-sized ISP level. It misses functionality for the real big networks. What we miss is proper SNMP trap handling (you can hack it so it works more or less, but not scalable or extremely reliable), integration with proprietary management systems (such as Cisco WAN manager, Alcatel AWS etc. ad infinitum), and scalability to 10.000's of devices (yes you can distribute your sensors, but it's n

    • by erase ( 3048 )
      also expect to devote someone full time to dealing with netcool.

      my experiences with netcool-ISM at two different companies have been unpleasant. their software crashed the probe hosts (running linux) at least once a week, their support department is horrendous, and it is a pita to administrate.
    • If you want serious monitoring and control and have a budget for replacement hardware, consider the just released Intel® vPro(TM) technology using Intel® Core(TM)2 Duo processors. It goes beyond software only solutions. It has the ability to remotely power up a machine that is turned off. If you need to fix a dead or crashed OS, that can also be done remotely. The OS runs inside a hardware based firmware shell making it possible to boot up the hardware even if the OS will not. From the firmwar
  • by saxman57 ( 132496 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @01:16AM (#16064298)
    If your company is willing to spend that much money on the network, a 'cheap' NMS tool is the wrong solution. Too often companies invest in technology only to skimp on the management of that technology. The end result is overall poor performance and dissatisfaction with the technology. I would suggest a real NMS tool such as OpenView.
    • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:27AM (#16064490) Homepage
      Openview is not necessarily the answer.

      It is one of the best fault oriented NMSes on the market, but its performance monitoring side has always sucked bricks through thing straw sideways. Based on the packages mentioned in the original post the poster is trying to monitor performance and utilisation, not faults so Openview is the wrong tool.

      I am an old school person (been doing this for 10+ years now on networks from 10 nodes to global telco), so my first choice for performance monitoring in a 30 node setup would be the classic - MRTG (though I use it with a rrd backend nowdays). I have run it for up to 600 monitored variables. It works. For a 30 node full mesh this will be a no-brainer. Its main disadvantage is that it does not preserve long term historical data (which managers sometimes require). The main advantage is that you can also plug in non-network data (CPU, environmental, application performance) from the linux part with ease. The next choice would obviously be infovista (its original stuff, not the stuff it acquired recently). It costs money though. No idea how much nowdays. It also has a learning curve associated with it.

      As far as the utilities mentioned in the original post - they are winhoze stuff, so I am not very familiar with them. I have seen some other products under the same brands (solarwind tftp server) and they are laughable.
      • If historical data is a requirement for MRTG, for a small installation, you can easily script a daily or weekly archive of the MRTG HTML (and data) directories. Presto -- historical archive, with picures and everything.
        • by arivanov ( 12034 )
          That is correct if historical data is acceptable in MRTG format.

          Usually (micro)managers and capacity (pseudo)planners want to be able to do adhoc-like queries which cannot be satisfied easily by such data. One solution is to do an immediate run after the MRTG run and put the "current" variable values into a database. You basically use MRTG for short-term graphing and as a collector. From there on you can use the data at a later date for ad-hoc stuff.

          Unfortunately if you want to reproduce MRTG itself from th
    • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
      OpenView and the like are hugely complicated tools for what they're trying to do, and extremely expensive. Application monitoring is definitely not its strongest forte, and adds to that high cost, depending upon the type of application and what you're trying to monitor/accomplish. You're much better off with a smaller application with optional agents and the ability to add plugins, both to the application and the agent.
    • by kashani ( 2011 )
      Spoken like someone who has never actually used Openview. It's expensive, is a framework requiring you to buy or write anything really useful, runs like crap, takes a ridiculous amount of hardware to run... I could go on and on.

      Assuming you're not an idiot, some combination of Nagios, Cacti, net-snmp, logwatch, syslog-ng, your favorite scripting language is cheaper to isntall, run, and maintain. Yeah you have to put a guy on it at least part time, but at least you don't have to put a full time guy on it li
  • Define Cheap (Score:1, Redundant)

    by KevinH456 ( 564212 )
    It seems like if you are spending all the money on that equipment, you might not want to go with a "cheap" solution. There should always be a good budget for software in any project. You want it to be powerful enough. That said, you shouldn't discount the free/cheap solutions just because they are free/cheap/open source. That's my 2cents.
  • I've used the Solar Winds software suite, HP's OpenView, and CiscoWorks myself for managing infrastructure for about 3500 devices. CiscoWorks is slow, but has tons of features if you're working with a lot of Cisco devices. OpenView is good for generating logical maps and managing a heterogeneous network with a lot of different devices. Solar Winds and OpenView were about the same in functionality for me. Out of the 3 I've used, I have always thought that I could do better, but I just don't have the time
    • Oh, I forgot to mention I hate OpenView's SNMP alert monitoring. CiscoWorks is nice if you can have CDP enabled on all the devices. Solar Winds was probably the best option for us. However, management decided to go with combination of OpenView and CiscoWorks. OpenView and CiscoWorks are pretty expensive last time I checked.
    • We use SolarWinds as well. We have just over 200 sites on the WAN so we don't have a full time network admin. SW is good for us because non-specialists can easily get a pretty good idea what's happening on the network and sort out issues at the helpdesk level before it has to come to me.

      The only issue with SW is that it is difficult to display measurements over short periods - for some of the more important sites we want stats once per 60 seconds, so we've had to retain a home grown solution (measurement
  • Check out Nagios (Score:5, Informative)

    by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:01AM (#16064419) Homepage
    Nagios [] is a fairly easy-to-learn, extremely extensible (can you use a scripting language?) monitoring system. It scales reasonably well, distributed stat gathering, can respond to SNMP traps, etc. Not the easiest out of the box (you'll spend a day or two learning to use it and set it up), but there's very little you can't make it do.
    • I'll give another vote for Nagios for most things. I also use cacti to get a nice, locked-down set of logs which non-tech people can login to and check to see how things are (including usage patterns). I would not recommend either product unless you like instruction manuals though!
    • by Bandman ( 86149 )
      And then another day or two writing scripts to add things to the Nagios configs, because doing it manually is a major PITA
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nuintari ( 47926 )
      I have to second this, nagios is amazing for network monitoring. You can actively poll for availability, build a complex dependency tree based on your network's actual layout. It scales very well, you can have the main web interface server in a good central spot, and have servers that do the actual checking and report back littered throughout your network. It can handle snmp traps with the addition of net-snmp, you can write your own checks and plugins, customize notifications. It is really an amazing frame
  • by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:07AM (#16064438) Homepage Journal
    Is a 'theme' really going to turn you off a piece of software? Ask the company if you can have it re-branded. Many companies will do this for free, especially web-based tools... and if they don't, well it's web based... there are stylesheets, graphics and html, it really shouldn't be that hard to make some radical visual changes without too much work.

    So go with the tool that works best, looks are pretty easy to adjust, as long as usability is there to begin with... if it's clunky, confusing and you hate how it looks... well that would take a bigger commitment to fix than just looks but it's been done before. Example... I once completely redesigned the UI for Bugzilla, canned queries, new workflows, collapsing panes, calendar widgets, color coding and more... but it was worth it in the end and that company still uses it 90% the way I left it. Which means it wasn't wasted effort.

    Well, think about it anyways.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I've got to agree with this -- form should follow function. If the features are the best, but the "look" isn't so great, that's still better than a great looking app which doesn't do what you want it to.

      That said, maybe you can make UI changes a condition of your purchase? You could also leverage the fact that you're using the tool to do "all this" as a reason to get more favorable licensing terms & pricing from the seller. If you're implementing a system as large as you say, I have to imagine tha
  • On a large cluster, we considered OpsManager, Cacti, and Ganglia, and have run all 3.

    OpsManager has some real nice features which made it easy to display and group results, especially to non-engineering people (good graphing tools built in, etc), but we found it didn't perform as well as the other 2. Addtionally, you have to pay for it.

    Cacti was nice because of the built in hooks for apache and MySql, but it didn't have some features we wanted (auto host discovery, certain data summarization)

    We use Ganglia
  • by spinash ( 87705 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:40AM (#16064521)
    if your network has a certain size and you do everything by SNMP, you need to be able to correlate the events to avoid alarm floods when one link goes down. We have used Openservice's Nervecenter with great success, coupled with NetCool from IBM. The pricing is steep, but the products are top-notch. In our configuration, we monitor about 8'000 network devices (Cisco, 3com, Bay, Nokia-IPSO, Consentry, etc) using 2 Nervecenter running on 2 Sun 480 boxes.

    (I'm not affiliated with these companies or products)
  • Use a Proper Tool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Michael Snoswell ( 3461 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:45AM (#16064530) Journal
    How is it that you're obviously spending a huge amount on the network infrastructure and want to cut costs so much on network monitoring? After going to all the effort of setting up you'll want a decent tool that tells you the instant something is wrong - and before the users tell you!

    Something like HP OpenView does the job. Cisco have a sw tool but not as good, as do Sunand IBM. CA Unicentre is overkill and too expensive to my mind. For small jobs (less than 100 nodes) I've used Ipswitch Whatsup Professional. You want something that goes inside your switches and has agents for all your servers if you want to monitor properly.

    In the dim past (10+yrs ago) I used Scotty (a Tcl/Tk freeware tool) and at other times wrote my own in Python/TK with Perl daemons/services.

    net-snmp on sourceforge has tools you can use but to my mind these days, again I'd say - it's an expensive (and I presume important) network your've got there, so spend some money to monitor it properly. The expensive tools ($30k+) all have ready made agents or know about a huge variety of hw so you don't have to customise MIBs and code (though Unicentre takes a lot of customisation to work well and they all need customisation of sorts). It might take you 3 months to do a half decent job coding yourself that a commercial package could do with more features in a few weeks and you've got support and someone to complain to if there're problems. How much money would be lost when the network goes down in those three months? Just one hour for a large corporation would cover the cost of the sw.

    I do agree it's great fun rolling your own (I'm sure you're a great programmer) if you have the time and the corporate managers don't appreciate the need to monitor things properly and you can't convince them to spend the dollars - but when it goes down it'll be your arse and the managers'/company's money being lost while you sweat to fix things - they'll quickly tell you then (and rightly so) it would have been worth doing it right the first time (you didn't think they'd take the heat for this now did you?) no matter how good your code will look in just another months time.

    At worst write some emails as evidence that you requested such and such a package with official quotes and have their replies on record they refused to spend the money on it. I know of one company that went to the wall when the network went down (chain of retail stores) and a series of seemingly small faults on critical days (like the last shopping days before christmas) meant the company went under and the IT consultants who designed the system took the blame in court in the end - cost them $30m (plus a few hundred ppl lost jobs).

    Now if this is just some academic network or it's not your responsibility then fine (mind you many research places are even more fussy about their networks than corporate users).

    Unfortunately there are times when jumping into coding, nomatter how well intentioned, isn't the most pragmatic or best solution.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:48AM (#16064541)
    SNMP? That's complicated stuff to set up.

    At work we rely on th much more robust, and easy to use URMP ("User Resource Management Protocal") to monitor our systems. When the systems go down, the users let us know about it.
    • by jimicus ( 737525 )
      You've been modded funny, but I've worked in environments where that was probably the most sensible system to adopt.
  • Take a look at Intellipool Network Monitor, you can find it at [] The pricing is fair and their support is excellent. INM also supports distributed monitoring, ie. if you have geographicly diverse location you can set up multiple monitors thats slaved to the main-server. Support for adding custom SNMP mibs exists.
  • SNMP == "Security is Not My Problem" ;-) Seriously though, what you use is entirely dependant on what it is you exactly want to monitor.

    It is trivial to write up simple net-snmp based pollers to push into RRDTool for graphing (my preferred method for generating traffic stats, after polling for which interfaces are administratively and operationally up, saves on having to configure what interfaces to monitor as you do with MRTG). Same data can also be pushed into whatever you use for historical logs.

  • We use Solar Winds and SNMPC together, however, What's up Gold is useful. Both Solar Winds and SNMPC are very powerful tools that can monitor large, widespread networks.

    Although a PITA to set up, Netdisco [] is a pretty awesome Open Source solution.

  • I've used NMIS [] to good effect, really love this tool. Also don't forget something like rancid [] either, it will save your life at some point.
  • Check out this software called Ubersmith. It started out as a billing system, but then grew into a Billing, Support, Device Manager/Monitoring package all integrated into one package. My company uses the Pro version of their software which lets you do SNMP monitoring. The cool thing about this program is that it's all nicely integrated. I have a client, I can click on their profile, view their services, and check out any devices associated with them. It will automatically notify admins or users if a de
  • What the hell? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jevring ( 618916 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @07:52AM (#16065257) Homepage
    So, let me get this straight, you're building a GLOBAL frame relay system, with nodes in 20+ states, with massive redundancy, and you're looking for a CHEAP system?

    Get yourself together and look for a GOOD system. If you're already spending TONS of money, you might aswell spend some more to get exactly what you want, instead of settling for something. It might turn out that a free system is the best system for you, but please, good HAS GOT TO come before cheap!
  • I've been looking for a replacement for a homegrown system management infrastructure for some time, anyone check out Hyperic yet? It seems to have a good list of supported applications, and layers, plus some smart modern approaches.
  • []

    We have an EM7 appliance. We're currently monitoring aprox 100 devices. 80 are servers, the rest network devices.
  • InterMapper (Score:3, Informative)

    by sam1am ( 753369 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @09:07AM (#16065508)
    I'm a fan of InterMapper [], powerful but not overly complicated, and easily extensible. It also runs on MacOSX, Windows, Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD. It was originally developed at Dartmouth College to support their network, and has been marketed commercially since 1996.
  • You could take a look at: []

    > The network will cover 20+ states, and several European and Asian countries and Australia.
    * Our system allows for "satellites" which are remote monitoring stations allowing you to perform checks against a given node from several remote locations.
    * Our system works well even in NAT'ed setups where several remote private-network sites report in status info to a central monitoring server
    * You can even delegate administrative tasks, so that the asian administ
  • MRTG
    Oldie but a goodie.

  • by rasjani ( 97395 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @09:52AM (#16065824) Homepage [] I was one of the implementation crew for small noc (about 7 people incl. managers) and approx 150 machines in various locations.. I reviewed quite a lot of free software and while most of them where looking quite nice (nagios/bigbrother/etc.), allmost all of them where filled with features that where really not essential just for "monitor the healt of the system" so i ended up with mon. Mon, for me was really the "unix way" of creating stuff, make things easy/simple and extend it with other tools.. The generic layout we used was net-snmp on client hosts either being polled in intervals or sending traps to the main machines.
  • For a network like yours, you do not want to "do it yourself" with Nagios. Nagios is the best network monitoring package available, but unless you have a full-time system admin dedicated to it, you will be in a world of pain. A better plan would be to look at Groundwork Monitor Professional ( The core of GMP is Nagios, but Groundwork have added plenty of integration goodness (profiles of service checks for particular servers: got an Exchange box but don't know which services to
  • I'd question the idea of frame relay in this day and age. Local connections with MPLS tagging should be cheaper and easier to manage. Friend of mine rolled out 140 odd site globally with MPLS. Cut price in half if I recall correctly.

  • I use WhatsUp and a suite of products called WebNM from Somix.
    I can monitor and alert on ANYTHING I want with this this package. If I have questions, the support is AWESOME.
    I used to use a lot of free tools like but the administration was time consuming (see MRTG).
  • When people discuss this issue they usually forget to make a distinction between fault monitoring and data gathering for historical trending (like, what has my traffic looked like this past year). Most tools are only very good at one of these tasks, while the other is a so-so add-on.

    For data collection and graphing, I've found cricket ( link []) to be very good. Once you've learned it, you can easily add new snmp OIDs into monitoring. In my experience that's been important because there are often new, som
  • Admittedly I've only used two or three products, but for what you suggest you've got, I'd defiantly recommend ipClarity ( ), its the best for ease of set up, and immediate results. When I subscribed to their service, i was getting web reports pretty much straight away, and it only took about 2 mins to set up. I'm pretty sure they have a US office now as well. Cheers
  • We have used HP Openview Network Node Manager, Openview Performance Insight, What's Up, and the older Sun Net Manager. So we are far from cheap.

    The best solution we have found so far? Product called SysOrb. [] . The price is unbeatable for the feature set.

    And it blows What's Up (Crap) Professional out of the water.

    You can use SNMP queries on devices, install Agents on servers to be monitored, and even run simple Netchecks like seeing if there is an httpd responding on port 80, or even
  • I like it, and it is way too easy to setup.

    Hyperic has a enterprise and a community edition, so you can try out and decide if you need enterprise support and features. []
  • Try argus. [] We've used it for a few years and have had great luck with it. It's simple to set up, and simple to extend.
  • Well, I suppose that it depends on your budget.

    IBM's Tivoli is something to look at

    BMC's Patrol

    HP's Openview

    NetIQ (which I hated)

    Nortel's Optivity

    Sun's Solstice

    CA's Unicenter

    Any one of the those ought to be able to do anything and everything you're asking for. Out of that list, I personally prefer BMC, but that's me.

    2 cents,


  • At my company, we use AdventNet's OpManager and like it a lot. The price was right for us, and for us their pricing model works well. Pricing based on the number of technicians instead of number of monitored nodes works perfectly for a company like mine with few admins/techs but many devices. Paying per node just gets unwieldy, especially if your environment is changing or growing rapidly.

    OpManager is fully capable of what you're looking for, I think you should give it another look despite your feelings abo
  • I continue to be utterly amazed that people still take network monitoring for granted when building out highly complex networks. (For the sake of argument, we'll ignore that cheap monitoring is probably appropriate for legacy technology like frame relay...)

    Since you're installing frame relay, I assume that you're using hardware from the Evil Empire (Cisco), so CiscoWorks is a perfectly adequate SNMP element manager for the Cisco hardware. However, if you're interested in more than just monitoring your
    • by itwerx ( 165526 )
      ...hardware from the Evil Empire (Cisco...remember, you can buy better than Cisco, but you can't pay more)

      A bit off topic, but I'm curious what your preferred alternative(s) would be?
            Not arguing with the Evil Empire viewpoint at all, just interested in what you prefer to work with.
  • I would recommend Big Brother ( because:
    - The free version works great
    - It can be Linux/Unix based (would recommend) or run from Windows
    - It gives a simple view of all network connected devices either on 1 or several pages, depending how you configure it
    - Can utilise paging / alert acknowleging etc.
    - There are many external scripts available at [] for specialised checking
    - It is easy enough to write your own external scripts if you know the basics of shell scripting
    - It i
  • Hello Cliff, The following is some information on CITTIO's WatchTower product. Based in San Francisco, CITTIO is a leading provider of system monitoring software. WatchTower, CITTIO's flagship product, is an enterprise system monitoring and management software application that runs within a Web-based portal environment. CITTIO has a number of success stories enabling desperate, multi-location networks, including Gymboree, Mervyn's, Pacific Sunwear, and Pizza Hut. Some key benefits include: - Increased
  • Cliff, for product information and technical discussion of your requirements.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling