monitoring thousands of servers using Nagios

[Cook, Garry]

nagios-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Okay, we have a homogenous environment. If we partition by server
> functionality, we may end up with 5-6 groups of 500-600 servers.
> One nagios install could handle one group. But then how do we
> aggregate this into a single monitoring solution? Is this even
> possible? Does Nagios provide a consolidation of multiple installs
> within a single web interface? Would there be a master Nagios machine
> that could manage all the others? Could it provide the single
> interface to the other groups of servers? Thanks for your quick
> response. 
> KJ

I believe the answer to all of your questions is 'Yes'.
Distributed Monitoring, check the docs.

Garry W. Cook, CCNA
Network Infrastructure Manager
MACTEC, Inc. - http://www.mactec.com/
303.273.5050 (Office) - 720.220.1862 (Mobile)

> 
> 
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:03:42 -0800, Jason Martin
> <jhmartin at toger.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 03:56:38PM -0700, Kerry Cox wrote:
>>> Nagios? I've been using Nagios for some time now, but am concerned
>>> about scalability issues. We're looking to manage roughly 2000-3000
>>> machines. Is 
> Nagios up to
>> At that size you'll probably have to partition your Nagios
>> installation, such as by purpose (dev/test/prod) or platform
>> (win/hpux/solaris). Otherwise the start time of Nagios gets to
>> be rather long and the CGI's perform poorely.
>> 
>> -Jason Martin
>> 



-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users
::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. 
::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null