Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Nagios vs Sensu: What are the differences?
Introduction
Nagios and Sensu are both open-source monitoring tools used to monitor the infrastructure and applications of an organization. While they serve a similar purpose, there are key differences between the two.
Architecture: Nagios follows a centralized architecture, where a single server collects and processes monitoring data. In contrast, Sensu follows a distributed architecture, where multiple agents collect data and forward it to a central server. This distributed architecture allows for greater scalability and flexibility in deployment.
Scalability: Nagios has limitations in terms of scalability, especially when monitoring a large number of devices or services. It is known to be resource-intensive and may struggle to handle high loads. Sensu, on the other hand, is designed to be highly scalable, thanks to its distributed architecture. It can handle a larger number of devices and services without sacrificing performance.
Configuration Management: Nagios relies on declarative configuration files that need to be manually updated whenever changes are made. This can be cumbersome and time-consuming, especially in large environments. Sensu, however, leverages configuration management tools like Puppet or Chef, allowing for automated and dynamic configuration updates. This makes managing and maintaining monitoring configurations much easier.
Flexibility: Nagios provides a predefined set of monitoring plugins and functionalities, limiting its flexibility in customization. Sensu, on the other hand, offers more flexibility by allowing users to write their own plugins in various programming languages. This flexibility enables organizations to tailor their monitoring solutions to their specific needs.
Support for Modern Technologies: Nagios originated in the late 1990s and may not have native support for newer technologies like cloud infrastructure or containerization. Sensu, being a relatively newer tool, has better support for these modern technologies, including integrations with popular cloud providers and container orchestration platforms like Kubernetes.
Monitoring Approach: Nagios primarily follows an active monitoring approach, where it actively checks the status of devices/services at defined intervals. Sensu, on the other hand, supports both active and passive monitoring approaches. In passive monitoring, monitored devices/services send data to Sensu whenever a specific event occurs, allowing for more reactive monitoring and alerting.
In summary, Nagios and Sensu differ in their architecture, scalability, configuration management, flexibility, support for modern technologies, and monitoring approaches. While Nagios is known for its centralized architecture and limited scalability, Sensu offers a distributed architecture, better scalability, automated configuration management, flexibility, support for modern technologies, and the ability to perform both active and passive monitoring.
- 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.
Pros of Nagios
- It just works53
- The standard28
- Customizable12
- The Most flexible monitoring system8
- Huge stack of free checks/plugins to choose from1
Pros of Sensu
- Support for almost anything13
- Easy setup11
- Message routing9
- Devs can code their own checks7
- Ease of use5
- Price4
- Nagios plugin compatibility3
- Easy configuration, scales well and performance is good3
- Written in Go1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Nagios
Cons of Sensu
- Plugins1
- Written in Go1