Henrik
I'm working on the imminent deployment of some new monitoring servers, perhaps within the next 2 months. For this roll-out, IPv6 is on the list of highly-desirable features. While Xymon v4.x has an extensive feature list, I'm prepared to live with more basic functionality for some time, if it's reliable enough on the core features (disk/mem/cpu client reporting to central mode servers, ping and some simple network tests). If we can bring online a range of more advance features that are present in 4.x, in the next 6 months, then that would be acceptable. As we'll have redundant (independent) Xymon servers, we'll be able to do some beta testing on one of the servers.
Would you recommend I stick with v4.x, or is the v5.x (trunk) reliable enough in its core feature set to be worth a little extra potential pain for a little while? Or perhaps hedge bets and use v5.x on only one of the Xymon servers?
Can anyone report on their experiences with v5.x?
Cheers Jeremy
Good morning all,
we're pretty much in the same situation: in dire need of a IPv6 capable monitoring solution and waiting for v5. I extensively tested xymon-4.3.99-20130812 and it worked pretty well. The only faulty test was LDAP. It's also considerably faster than 4.3.x, so we'd be happy to deploy anytime now. Since then there's been talk of a xymonnet rewrite, but I don't know the status and I'm not aware of any more recent test versions.
HTH, -Christian
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 01:50:04PM +1000, Jeremy Laidman wrote:
Henrik
I'm working on the imminent deployment of some new monitoring servers, perhaps within the next 2 months. For this roll-out, IPv6 is on the list of highly-desirable features. While Xymon v4.x has an extensive feature list, I'm prepared to live with more basic functionality for some time, if it's reliable enough on the core features (disk/mem/cpu client reporting to central mode servers, ping and some simple network tests). If we can bring online a range of more advance features that are present in 4.x, in the next 6 months, then that would be acceptable. As we'll have redundant (independent) Xymon servers, we'll be able to do some beta testing on one of the servers.
Would you recommend I stick with v4.x, or is the v5.x (trunk) reliable enough in its core feature set to be worth a little extra potential pain for a little while? Or perhaps hedge bets and use v5.x on only one of the Xymon servers?
Can anyone report on their experiences with v5.x?
Cheers Jeremy
Xymon mailing list Xymon at xymon.com http://lists.xymon.com/mailman/listinfo/xymon
--
Dr. Christian Herzog <herzog at phys.ethz.ch> support: +41 44 633 26 68
IT Services Group, HPT H 8 voice: +41 44 633 39 50
Department of Physics, ETH Zurich
8093 Zurich, Switzerland http://nic.phys.ethz.ch/
Hi,
the version that Christian has tested works pretty well. The LDAP problem is on the "to-do" list, and the only other major issue is with trend graphing of web content-checks (the rrd-files are not being updated).
I don't know if Christian tested IPv6, but since the actual changes to support IPv6 are fairly simple, I would not expect a lot of problems specifically in that area.
In other words, if you need IPv6 - go grab the current "trunk" version. It includes the new xymonnet code that Christian mentions (he's been testing it, so I thought he knew it was in already ...)
There's a message in the list archive describing how to setup version 5: http://lists.xymon.com/pipermail/xymon/2013-July/037935.html
On a related note, it is obvious that the current development/release model does not work. I suspect I will simply be cleaning up the current trunk code and release it more or less "as is" and then fix bugs / add features / handle regressions in smaller sub-releases.
Regards, Henrik
Den 28-05-2014 07:24, Christian Herzog skrev:
Good morning all,
we're pretty much in the same situation: in dire need of a IPv6 capable monitoring solution and waiting for v5. I extensively tested xymon-4.3.99-20130812 and it worked pretty well. The only faulty test was LDAP. It's also considerably faster than 4.3.x, so we'd be happy to deploy anytime now. Since then there's been talk of a xymonnet rewrite, but I don't know the status and I'm not aware of any more recent test versions.
HTH, -Christian
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 01:50:04PM +1000, Jeremy Laidman wrote:
Henrik
I'm working on the imminent deployment of some new monitoring servers, perhaps within the next 2 months. For this roll-out, IPv6 is on the list of highly-desirable features. While Xymon v4.x has an extensive feature list, I'm prepared to live with more basic functionality for some time, if it's reliable enough on the core features (disk/mem/cpu client reporting to central mode servers, ping and some simple network tests). If we can bring online a range of more advance features that are present in 4.x, in the next 6 months, then that would be acceptable. As we'll have redundant (independent) Xymon servers, we'll be able to do some beta testing on one of the servers.
Would you recommend I stick with v4.x, or is the v5.x (trunk) reliable enough in its core feature set to be worth a little extra potential pain for a little while? Or perhaps hedge bets and use v5.x on only one of the Xymon servers?
Can anyone report on their experiences with v5.x?
Cheers Jeremy
Xymon mailing list Xymon at xymon.com http://lists.xymon.com/mailman/listinfo/xymon
Hi all,
the version that Christian has tested works pretty well. The LDAP problem is on the "to-do" list, and the only other major issue is with trend graphing of web content-checks (the rrd-files are not being updated). I did not notice that :)
I don't know if Christian tested IPv6, but since the actual changes to support IPv6 are fairly simple, I would not expect a lot of problems specifically in that area. matter of fact, we did. Works well.
In other words, if you need IPv6 - go grab the current "trunk" version. It includes the new xymonnet code that Christian mentions (he's been testing it, so I thought he knew it was in already ...) true, but I recall that you mentioned yet another rewrite that you had in mind. I was rather happy with the new xymonnet considering that it was a lot faster than the old 4.3.x code.
On a related note, it is obvious that the current development/release model does not work. I suspect I will simply be cleaning up the current trunk code and release it more or less "as is" and then fix bugs / add features / handle regressions in smaller sub-releases. I'd welcome this approach very much and I volunteer to continue providing testing and bug reports for both IPv4 and v6.
best, -Christian
participants (3)
-
henrik＠hswn.dk
-
herzog＠phys.ethz.ch
-
jlaidman＠rebel-it.com.au