Remote Monitoring with Zabbix
-
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
At that point why wouldnt I put a Zabbix server at their site and use Teamviewer or something to access it?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
At that point why wouldnt I put a Zabbix server at their site and use Teamviewer or something to access it?
If you sitll used a hosted option - you can set offline / down alerts - if the site is down (isp) you won't get them. We have a Zabbix hosted monitoring several different clients / servers.
-
@gjacobse said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
At that point why wouldnt I put a Zabbix server at their site and use Teamviewer or something to access it?
If you sitll used a hosted option - you can set offline / down alerts - if the site is down (isp) you won't get them. We have a Zabbix hosted monitoring several different clients / servers.
That's a good point
-
@gjacobse said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
Not sure why you need separate Zabbix instances for each?
So when we attempt to calculate what is needed hardware wise (number of machines) we can get what we need and if they don't renew we can just delete that VM for that business.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@gjacobse said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
Not sure why you need separate Zabbix instances for each?
So when we attempt to calculate what is needed hardware wise (number of machines) we can get what we need and if they don't renew we can just delete that VM for that business.
We have but a single Zabbix instances running for the sites we are monitoring. If they discontinue service - just delete that 'site'
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@gjacobse said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
Not sure why you need separate Zabbix instances for each?
So when we attempt to calculate what is needed hardware wise (number of machines) we can get what we need and if they don't renew we can just delete that VM for that business.
Same with the proxy. I'm not seeing any value to separate Zabbix instances.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@gjacobse said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
At that point why wouldnt I put a Zabbix server at their site and use Teamviewer or something to access it?
If you sitll used a hosted option - you can set offline / down alerts - if the site is down (isp) you won't get them. We have a Zabbix hosted monitoring several different clients / servers.
That's a good point
If you have an instance at each site, you'll have no way to be alerted should a site fail.
-
Definitely appreciate the advice guys
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
At that point why wouldnt I put a Zabbix server at their site and use Teamviewer or something to access it?
Teamviewer? Why not SSH? Or Salt?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Right. It would also be a Zabbix server at each site. So you word this like it's bad, when in reality the proxy is better for this very reason.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
At that point why wouldnt I put a Zabbix server at their site and use Teamviewer or something to access it?
Teamviewer? Why not SSH? Or Salt?
Because I'm not going to be here forever and I'm the only person that understands (sort of) the linux command line.If I did this in vultr it wouldnt matter though. TV would be pointless. That was referencing the onsite virtualized Zabbix server though
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
At that point why wouldnt I put a Zabbix server at their site and use Teamviewer or something to access it?
Teamviewer? Why not SSH? Or Salt?
Because I'm not going to be here forever and I'm the only person that understands (sort of) the linux command line.If I did this in vultr it wouldnt matter though. TV would be pointless. That was referencing the onsite virtualized Zabbix server though
At some point, you just have to assume that they must hire someone capable or they are screwed anyway. This isn't a case of making something complex that you need to struggle to find support for, it's a case of very basic skill that anyone potential competent can learn in minutes and getting support from anywhere is available. If they have a problem with this, they can't support Windows either - but might look like they are. So it's the opposite of your thought process, you are putting them at the biggest support risk making it LOOK like they are able to support something that they cannot.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
If I did this in vultr it wouldnt matter though. TV would be pointless. That was referencing the onsite virtualized Zabbix server though
How does being on Vultr change the TV situation?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@wirestyle22 said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
@scottalanmiller said in Remote Monitoring with Zabbix:
A proxy is better than separate monitoring tools. What is it that you want to monitor?
It would be a proxy at each site though. Hardware and service monitoring with e-mail alerts
Yes. But then you'd have a central console rather than needing to log in to each separately to check in.
At that point why wouldnt I put a Zabbix server at their site and use Teamviewer or something to access it?
Teamviewer? Why not SSH? Or Salt?
Because I'm not going to be here forever and I'm the only person that understands (sort of) the linux command line.If I did this in vultr it wouldnt matter though. TV would be pointless. That was referencing the onsite virtualized Zabbix server though
At some point, you just have to assume that they must hire someone capable or they are screwed anyway. This isn't a case of making something complex that you need to struggle to find support for, it's a case of very basic skill that anyone potential competent can learn in minutes and getting support from anywhere is available. If they have a problem with this, they can't support Windows either - but might look like they are. So it's the opposite of your thought process, you are putting them at the biggest support risk making it LOOK like they are able to support something that they cannot.
You're right. I'll setup SSH.
