Web-Based config

[Jeremy Russell]

Well, I tried to avoid getting involved, but...

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:30:30PM -0600, jason at cannonfodder.org wrote:
> just my .02 worth.
> 
> I am going to have to agree. We have ~300 hosts and ~1500 services and

> the initial setup of nagios was a major project.

>You call writing a ~20 line shell script plus some manual tuning a
"major project"? 

>> Add to that the fact
>> that I would have to "dumb down" the documentation even more and give

>> our support staff access I dont want them to have in order for them
to 
>> be able to setup new hosts and services.

>[ ] You know what you can do with Unix file/directory permissions and
>   nagios' ability to use more than one config file. 

>I admit that, if you have two or three hosts/services, a web based
point-and-click based >config option is much easier. But with a certain
level of depth and experience, you
>should be much faster using an editor modifying config files (or
scripting them, for 
>larger changes) than filling in any number of web forms with
combinations of clicking and >typing.

Of course, that is if you have shell access. But Im not going to allow a
support staff that doesn't even know what shell access is have it.  They
can follow a point and click proceedure better than a procedure
explaining to them to edit five different config files.  And before you
ask if the support staff is setting this up...  Of course they don't but
they mgiht be asked to do simple procedures when the real admins are
busy with other tasks

 

>I'm arrogant enough to add that if you're not experienced enough to see
the point and 
>agree, I wouldn't think you're experienced enough to be trusted to
monitor my precious 
>equipment. 

Thus again, I don't know about you but I don't have time to monitor
much.  I get to design the system and impelement procedure, but some
kids and phone jockeys get to watch to stuff and notify me...

>Don't take this personal, but attitudes like "give me something to
click and I don't care >what the config file looks like" are worrying
me. Greater power is rarely found than the >one you get by understanding
and being able to manipulate config files directly. 

Who has this attitude?  I would think that anyone had this attitude they
woudn't be using Nagios, but something like WhatsUp...  I figuremost
people on this list have put the effort into configuring nagios by hand.
I agree that we should understand the config files,  That's what docs
are for,  We should understand how it al works before we mess with
anything.  But that doesn't mean that a convienent interface for those
of us who's time is precious can't make use of it.

>I don't really care if there is a (usable) web interface. I agree that
it should be tied >to Nagios at least as closely as the plugins. But the
minute I discover that the config 
>files are messed up because of them, you will hear me scream. Wherever
on this earth you >may happen to be. 

Who said anything about the config files beeing messed up?  What files?
I would presume that using a DB for the config would be a better
implementation.  Sure, you would want a utiliies to build/rebuild a DB
from file(s) or dump to file(s).  But I don't see any reall argument for
a web interface to talk to files over a DB implementation (But I havev't
really heard any arguments so I could be persuaded I suppose).

I don't see as much harm from having a built in option of using a web
interface for configuration, as I see a great feature to allow a much
broader range of users and uses.

jrmy
>Rasmus


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! 
Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and 
the chance of winning an Apple iPod:
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users
::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. 
::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null