Server Availability Monitoring Tools

Surname 1
Server Availability Monitoring Tools
Student Name
Student Number
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date

Surname 2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................3
2 Comparison...................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Disk Usage.............................................................................................................................3
2.2 CPU Monitoring....................................................................................................................4
2.3 Process Monitoring................................................................................................................6
2.4 Bandwidth Monitoring...........................................................................................................7
2.5 Resource Measuring..............................................................................................................8
2.6 Overall Availability...............................................................................................................9
3 Evaluation...................................................................................................................................10
3.1 Ganglia.................................................................................................................................10
3.2 Spiceworks...........................................................................................................................10
3.2 Architecture.........................................................................................................................11
4 Solution proposal........................................................................................................................11
5 Failure Prediction Impact...........................................................................................................12
6 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................12
References......................................................................................................................................13

Surname 3
1 Introduction
Security is among the critical things that must be ensured in any organization. In every
organization, the security of information is simply done in the server side and this requires the
administration to ensure that its data is secure. Since a large portion of the task keeps on running
at a full-time premise, nobody can probably observe all edges of the association at a prior.
To avoid issues of framework server failures, there is a need for a few apparatuses that ensure
legitimate checking. In this examination report, we are going to think about the execution and the
utility of a portion of the server accessibility, observing devices including yet not restricted to;
Nagios Core, Ganglia, CollectD, Spiceworks, Cacti, Zabbix, Icinga, OpenNMS and WhatsUp
Gold as for the measurements we will consider in the following segment.
2 Comparison
2.1 Disk Usage
Nagios Core Ganglia CollectD Spiceworks Cacti
Only requires a
little space in
terms of the
percentage for
most of the
operations. Use
of the
percentage in
calculating
Here the disk is
subdivided into
several nodes used
for multicasting the
states of both the host
and the XML. All in
single network
transmission.
Involves periodic
retrieval of the
stored RRD files
which already
have been stored
systematically.
Even though it
can be installed
on a virtual
machine it uses
most of the
space within the
disk.
Here data storage is
handled by the
RRD tools. This
tool inhibits room
for an extension
that could be done
on a given system.

Surname 4
eases the
allocation
memory.
Zabbix Icinga OpenNMS WhatsUp Gold
Its storage is based on
an XML design and
its configuration uses
most of the storage
disk
Uses little storage
space, unlike other
management tools.
Uses a little storage
since all its files are
just less compared to
the other monitoring
tools.
Very risky to operate
this kind of tool since
it requires some other
storage sources
otherwise it can
exhaust the whole
available storage
2.2 CPU Monitoring
Nagios Core Ganglia CollectD Spiceworks Cacti
Utilizes the
CPU
systematically.
Depending on the
performance, it
does not guarantee
the operations at
the maximum
Most of the
main functions
are performed
as auxiliary
hence allows
Once some
resources are
being monitored,
this tool allows
more memory to
Data traffic is
allowed in an
interval
manner to be
displayed in a