Show HN: Monitor in a Box – Instantly usable, open source monitoring(solutions.stacktile.io) |
Show HN: Monitor in a Box – Instantly usable, open source monitoring(solutions.stacktile.io) |
But I can't.
Being visually impaired just makes things worse. Your site doesn't work with FireFox 'Reader View', and that forces me to 'Toggle CSS' off which causes the icons and site-design to be FUBAR.
You might have the best damn product in the world, but if I can't read about it on your own pages then it's no good to me.
I only found out that you use Ansible from the comments on here from another poster. I really want to know about this now as I have migrated our entire datacenter to Ansible, and I really love it.
Let me postscript that I have sympathy for not having full ability to read on the internet, and I'm sure the world would be easier for many if screenreaders and high contrast were universal, but I also wonder whether and by how much design must suffer to accomodate all users.
well, i have pretty much technically perfect (just very easily tired after almost 30 years looking into the screen) vision and while i can read it, i'd prefer to have it in higher contrast as i just physically feel how my eyes have to work harder for the glorious make benefit of design.
After spending some time some years ago on accessibility related work, it became clear to me that while obviously the accessibility is the key for handicapped users, the thought-through accessibility (vs. just "get a screenreader") on a project frequently results in the improved design that is better (like in particular cleaner and simpler in appearance and interaction flow) for the regular non-handicapped users too.
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-cont...
I'm sorry about that. We'll see what we can do to address this problem.
Nice to have a supported, pro-grade monitoring product that isn't priced per server, finally.
Also I'd like to clarify a possible misunderstanding: Monitor in a Box does not require that ansible be installed on all the servers. We only require that ansible be installed on the one machine that orchestrates the setup of Monitor in a Box.
Looking forward to trying it out.
In a nutshell, Monitor in a box is a system/application monitoring solution based on Ansible, Icinga 2 and Grafana.
I would like to kindly point you to our demo to see what our software does.
We've also made our code available at github, and I invite you to check out our README to get an idea of how to begin using.
I hope that helps clarify what we're trying to do.
And install instructions from README on GitHub looks like one big let's not, with half a dozen of modernish tools that obscure what's actually happening (basically, `apt-get install icinga2' and putting some config files in place).
"That said, the more specific you customize your monitoring, the more detailed an understanding of these components you will need."
This sounds as bad as what I've heard about Nagios. Why does it have to be so complicated?
To be precise, Monitor in a box is a solution built in-part on Icinga 2.
I can entirely sympathize with your comment here, but I'd like to try to quickly present a contrary perspective:
Indeed there are architectural trade-offs made by every monitoring system, and icinga2 makes some that we also have found to be frustrating: one such example that comes to mind for me personally is that icinga aims to maintain backwards compatibility with its historically-derived nagios configuration file syntax which is difficult to understand and hard to parse in an automated fashion.
On the other hand, there are exampls of architectural choices that I believe icinga gets right: It implements an approach to secure and authenticated metrics collection that virtually every other monitoring system leaves as an "exercise" for the user. It provides checks and alerts and notification thershholds by default, which many other monitoring systems don't.
We build monitor in a box to attempt to highlight one particular approach to using icinga 2 which we find works for us. We attempt to be systematic and through in our approach, aiming for a reproducible, Ansible based implementation that emphasizes modularity and code reuse. We invite everyone to try out our open source offering to decide for his or her self whether the benfits of running icinga 2 in this fashion outweigh the drawbacks.
It's two "z" there.
> [...] icinga aims to maintain backwards compatibility with its historically-derived nagios configuration file syntax which is difficult to understand and hard to parse in an automated fashion.
Parsing Icinga/Nagios configuration file is easy, even if you count object templates (register=0 and use foo) and use handcrafted parser instead of generated one. The syntax is not a complicated one. I don't know what problems have you encountered.
> On the other hand, there are exampls of architectural choices that I believe icinga gets right: It implements an approach to secure and authenticated metrics collection that virtually every other monitoring system leaves as an "exercise" for the user.
Oh, this is more or less easy task if your monitoring system has some secret (e.g. X.509 certificate) exchanged with the monitored hosts, and can be bolted on pretty much any monitoring system with some stunnel-fu (which proves that it's nothing on the architecture side of the system).
It's sharing that secret in a robust and automatic way that is quite difficult. I doubt Icinga does anything better than the rest of the crowd.
> It provides checks and alerts and notification thershholds by default, which many other monitoring systems don't.
Once you have an established flow of monitoring messages, then thresholds, alerts, and notification become simple stream processing and consumption. Sure, Icinga and others give you this simple processing in the package, and some systems give you a few more queries than others (e.g. originally Nagios only processed what I call "state", while Cacti only processed metrics, and Zabbix processes both). But this processing rarely is complex. And none of them give you an ability to process the data stream itself.
And then there is this almost universally shared requirement that you need to define all the instances of hosts and services beforehand, only differing how the template system is implemented in a given monitoring system.
You can't just start collecting data about servers as they get installed and about services and resources as they emerge and disappear. No, you need to tell the monitoring system that it should expect data from this host and this service (collectd, Graphite, and InfluxDB got it right here).
It is useful sometimes for monitoring system to expect some data to show up (and possibly alert that it's missing), only sometimes, not all the time. Usually other data can easily cover the scenario where something silently goes down, and there's still this "stream processing" thing I mentioned that can just monitor that some data stopped being received.
In the spirit of shameless self-promotion, I invite you to clone our git repo and see for yourself! :-)
Too true. Messaging that is relevant to both technical people ("devops") and business (management, procurement, etc) is a hard problem to solve, though!
There seems to be a marketing tendency to either gloss over the technical ideas behind a product, or make technical details front-and-center and leave anyone less than 100% technical searching for a product that they can grok.
This is something we're struggling with right now: our basic messaging for Userify (ssh key management), which is actually a fairly simple and sane product, has gotten a bit out of hand as well: our support team is fielding frequent questions like, "what does each edition do." We've got to get on top of that and get some comparison matrices or something up. Applauding the OP for a nice, clean landing page that conveys most of the relevant details, but as you point out, the Github readme is far better. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
You can do that in Zabbix, it has two functions to discover hosts (called "network discovery") or "features" like running services or e.g. switch ports (called "low level discovery") and apply templates based on certain query results (open ports, SNMP values etc.). Alerting the lack of new incoming data is also possible. I used Zabbix a lot until a year ago and liked it much more than Nagios+descendants.
This architecture results in much longer feedback loop, [object to be monitored -> discovery -> config -> collection engine -> probe -> object's state -> storage] vs. [object to be monitored -> probe -> object's state -> storage]. And you have to move requests/network packets back and forth just to collect the usage for each CPU on a machine separately (or NICs usage, or filesystem usage, or VM/LXC guests, or Apache/nginx vhosts, or...), because the knowledge what objects are there to monitor is on the monitored host's side, not on the monitoring system's side.
And you're limited to whatever resources this predefined discovery mechanism supports. You can't easily write your own probe that discovers things on its own.
And on top of that, discovery mechanism doesn't allow temporary, ad-hoc defined things to be monitored. You can't imagine how often I set a screen with a shell loop to collect a metric or watch state for this one particular process I was debugging:
while sleep 1; do foo; done | tee /tmp/foo.log