Icinga vs Munin

Overview

Icinga

Stacks120

Followers97

Votes0

Munin

Stacks71

Followers95

Votes10

GitHub Stars2.1K

Forks479

Icinga vs Munin: What are the differences?

Monitoring Approach: Icinga focuses on empowering users with more control and flexibility through advanced plugins and API integration, allowing for granular monitoring configurations. In contrast, Munin is more simplistic and easy to set up, showcasing a straightforward monitoring approach with predefined plugins.
Data Visualization: Icinga offers more comprehensive data visualization options, such as interactive dashboards and customizable reports, enhancing the overall monitoring experience. On the other hand, Munin provides basic graphs and charts for essential performance metrics without extensive customization features.
Scalability: Icinga is designed to handle large-scale environments efficiently, offering distributed monitoring capabilities and high availability setups for complex infrastructures. Munin, while capable of monitoring multiple nodes, may face scalability challenges in larger environments due to its architecture limitations.
Alerting Mechanisms: Icinga provides advanced alerting mechanisms with flexible notification setups, including escalations and dependencies, enabling users to create intricate alerting workflows. In contrast, Munin offers simpler alerting functionalities with basic notifications based on predefined threshold values.
Plugin Ecosystem: Icinga boasts a robust plugin ecosystem with extensive community support, providing a wide range of monitoring capabilities for various systems and applications. Munin, on the other hand, has a smaller plugin library, limiting the monitoring possibilities compared to Icinga.
Resource Consumption: Icinga may require more system resources, especially in large-scale deployments, due to its advanced monitoring features and distributed architecture. Munin, on the other hand, is known for its lightweight footprint, making it a suitable choice for resource-constrained environments.

In Summary, Icinga offers advanced monitoring capabilities with scalability and customization options, while Munin provides a simpler, lightweight solution with basic monitoring functionalities.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Icinga, Munin

Matthias

Teamlead IT at NanoTemper Technologies

Jun 11, 2020

Decided

free open source
modern interface and architecture
large community
extendable I knew Nagios for decades but it was really outdated (by its architecture) at some point. That's why Icinga started first as a fork, not with Icinga2 it is completely built from scratch but backward-compatible with Nagios plugins. Now it has reached a state with which I am confident.

142k views142k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Icinga	Munin
It monitors availability and performance, gives you simple access to relevant data and raises alerts to keep you in the loop. It was originally created as a fork of the Nagios system monitoring application.	Munin is a networked resource monitoring tool that can help analyze resource trends and "what just happened to kill our performance?" problems. It is designed to be very plug and play. A default installation provides a lot of graphs with almost no work.
Statistics
GitHub Stars -	GitHub Stars 2.1K
GitHub Forks -	GitHub Forks 479
Stacks 120	Stacks 71
Followers 97	Followers 95
Votes 0	Votes 10
Pros & Cons
No community feedback yet	Pros 3 Good defaults 2 Adheres to traditional Linux standards 2 Alerts can trigger any command line program 2 Extremely fast to install 1 Easy to write custom plugins

What are some alternatives to Icinga, Munin?

Grafana

Grafana is a general purpose dashboard and graph composer. It's focused on providing rich ways to visualize time series metrics, mainly though graphs but supports other ways to visualize data through a pluggable panel architecture. It currently has rich support for for Graphite, InfluxDB and OpenTSDB. But supports other data sources via plugins.

Kibana

Kibana is an open source (Apache Licensed), browser based analytics and search dashboard for Elasticsearch. Kibana is a snap to setup and start using. Kibana strives to be easy to get started with, while also being flexible and powerful, just like Elasticsearch.

Prometheus

Prometheus is a systems and service monitoring system. It collects metrics from configured targets at given intervals, evaluates rule expressions, displays the results, and can trigger alerts if some condition is observed to be true.

Nagios

Nagios is a host/service/network monitoring program written in C and released under the GNU General Public License.

Netdata

Netdata collects metrics per second & presents them in low-latency dashboards. It's designed to run on all of your physical & virtual servers, cloud deployments, Kubernetes clusters & edge/IoT devices, to monitor systems, containers & apps

Zabbix

Zabbix is a mature and effortless enterprise-class open source monitoring solution for network monitoring and application monitoring of millions of metrics.

Sensu

Sensu is the future-proof solution for multi-cloud monitoring at scale. The Sensu monitoring event pipeline empowers businesses to automate their monitoring workflows and gain deep visibility into their multi-cloud environments.

Graphite

Graphite does two things: 1) Store numeric time-series data and 2) Render graphs of this data on demand

Lumigo

Lumigo is an observability platform built for developers, unifying distributed tracing with payload data, log management, and real-time metrics to help you deeply understand and troubleshoot your systems.

StatsD

It is a network daemon that runs on the Node.js platform and listens for statistics, like counters and timers, sent over UDP or TCP and sends aggregates to one or more pluggable backend services (e.g., Graphite).

Related Comparisons

Icinga vs Munin: What are the differences?

Monitoring Approach: Icinga focuses on empowering users with more control and flexibility through advanced plugins and API integration, allowing for granular monitoring configurations. In contrast, Munin is more simplistic and easy to set up, showcasing a straightforward monitoring approach with predefined plugins.
Data Visualization: Icinga offers more comprehensive data visualization options, such as interactive dashboards and customizable reports, enhancing the overall monitoring experience. On the other hand, Munin provides basic graphs and charts for essential performance metrics without extensive customization features.
Scalability: Icinga is designed to handle large-scale environments efficiently, offering distributed monitoring capabilities and high availability setups for complex infrastructures. Munin, while capable of monitoring multiple nodes, may face scalability challenges in larger environments due to its architecture limitations.
Alerting Mechanisms: Icinga provides advanced alerting mechanisms with flexible notification setups, including escalations and dependencies, enabling users to create intricate alerting workflows. In contrast, Munin offers simpler alerting functionalities with basic notifications based on predefined threshold values.
Plugin Ecosystem: Icinga boasts a robust plugin ecosystem with extensive community support, providing a wide range of monitoring capabilities for various systems and applications. Munin, on the other hand, has a smaller plugin library, limiting the monitoring possibilities compared to Icinga.
Resource Consumption: Icinga may require more system resources, especially in large-scale deployments, due to its advanced monitoring features and distributed architecture. Munin, on the other hand, is known for its lightweight footprint, making it a suitable choice for resource-constrained environments.

In Summary, Icinga offers advanced monitoring capabilities with scalability and customization options, while Munin provides a simpler, lightweight solution with basic monitoring functionalities.

Icinga vs Munin

Overview