On 6/14/2010 5:20 PM, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 03:55:10PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > >> I happen to like OpenNMS (http://www.opennms.org) but it is considerably >> more complicated than cacti to set up. > > Thanks. I don't mind complicated if the documentation is clear. Cacti is in > that fuzzy area where it's not quite simple, and the docs aren't quite clear > (at least not to my learning style). It looks like OpenNMS is mostly in the > same space as Nagios, which we're already happy with and have no motivation > to replace. The big difference is that OpenNMS typically needs no agent or per-host configuration because it works with snmp and auto-discovery of most services - and it handles routers/switches as well has hosts. It's actually not that hard to get started if you want to try it since you can use their yum repository and they just had a new stable release. > Would there be a stripped-down usage to just give us the > per-core CPU usage graphs which are what we currently need (and have no > notion how to add to Nagios, if it can even be done); does OpenNMS already > have a per-core CPU usage graphing capability. I'm not sure of the details of how this works. With the default setup I get a single CPU usage graph on linux targets and windows targets may show none or one per CPU. I think it is up to what the snmp agent returns. >> And I think your SNMP server setup is the real problem. Do you get a >> response with snmpwalk using the same community name? > > Yes, snmpwalk gives a good response. (Although to confuse things, the CentOS > man page for snmpwalk is years out of date and doesn't present the current > syntax - still, it has a current built-in help page.) Does 'good' mean many pages of output if you don't specify an oid? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com