Nagios XI Reviews

In total, our company has 900 employees and I work on a four-member administrative security team. All of our company's infrastructure is covered by Nagios XI, including our server, databases, switches, router, and data center. We use a hybrid setup that combines a virtual and physical local server with a cloud server. We implemented Nagios XI in our data center because it's installed in a VM, or virtual machine, and works easily with this data server.

Nagios XI helps us monitor the bandwidth of the internet connection, HTTP, DNS, active directory services, and exchange data availability. We have multiple servers to monitor databases, availability of servers, and ping. SMTP services can be monitored with Nagios XI. We use Nagios' mail features to send email alerts to the IT team to let them know we have an issue on our server, a problem with the databases, or updates about the availability of a server.

I would like to see Nagios integrate the team mail with the SMS gateway so we can send text alerts. It's difficult to use. To activate this option, you have to activate something from another script then use a shell script to integrate via another gateway SMS. Also, it would be great if it were integrated with another solution to generate logs, like PCM, AlienVault, or Splunk. We want alerts integrated with a system to generate logs. AlienVault and Splunk could enable this option. It is really difficult to integrate Nagios XI with another system to generate logs and alert our management of failures in security infrastructure.

I have 10 years of experience with Nagios.

The database is stable and I don't have any problems with the solution.

I think it's average. It's not fast, but I think it's okay. For the price, I think the quality of support is normal.

For our country in North Africa, it's expensive and we could purchase another solution for that price. But it's a reasonable price if we're speaking in international terms. If we compare it with another solution in the global IT world, then I think it's a reasonable price.

I would rate Nagios XI eight out of 10.

The company used to use ManageEngine, however, it was not delivering what we were really trying to produce. The benefit of Nagios is, as we are an MVNO company, an MVME company actually, we actually had to deliver monitoring based on in-house solutions. We needed to write code over our own monitoring solution. Nagios has provided us a little bit of that help as, in our proof of concept, it proved to be useful due to the fact that it's easier also for the network operations center to understand the type of monitors that are being raised. I recall we had a number of POCs at the time, and Nagios seemed to be the perfect candidate and therefore we kept using it.

It's easy to use. You provide what you want and you can monitor what you really want. 

As long as you develop your own codes, it is fine. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The solution is pretty stable.

Technical support is helpful. 

The pricing has recently risen. I know they've changed what is covered under the license, however, it doesn't change the way we use it and adds nothing to our experience, and yet we now have to pay more.

An optional delivery from their end in order to greatly produce some sort of a HA, high availability solution, would be ideal. At present, if I have a solution and Nagios is instanced in a particular data center and another Nagios solution in another data center, when you buy the license, you can eventually have different types of licenses. One will be a stand-by and the other will be a disaster recovery solution. What's missing from the Nagios side is the idea of having some sort of synchronization between the two instances. 

If I have a stand-by solution and I need ticketing as an active solution, I need to do many things manually. For example, I need to manually do ticketing on the backup and restore it on the other. It would be a good idea for some sort of mechanism, like a sort of clustering, which can help a lot for people out there who need something in an active-standby solution. I'm not sure this will be available out there even on other solutions, like Zabbix, for example, That said, I don't think they're really digging into this kind of scenario.

When you start deploying thousands of monitors, especially in a big company, for example, you have to take care, as that you cannot keep on pushing into one solution. It can become inefficient. They say it's specifically that when you skip an X amount of monitors, Nagios starts behaving differently. 

I really don't like the idea of the certification provided by them. As a company and as a team lead, I have other people who were interested in doing some certifications, coming from the management. However, they did not provide any sort of training, which gives you the independence to do an exam. It's like they just provide a simple document for you to read and then just to apply in the exam, just to be Nagios certified. On top of that, that kind of document is very old. I asked them if they had anything up-to-date. They told me that's what they have even though it's clear it's very old quality for the current engine that Nagios is currently built on. There were quite a number of upgrades - at least five. At the same time, Zabbix certification offers you training beforehand and then you can opt for either a certification or an exam.

I've used the solution since about 2018. It's been about three or four years at this point.

For the most part, the solution is stable. There were some cases with stability, especially, for example, unexpected issues that you are not aware of at first. All of a sudden you notice that just as an example, the graphs are not actually graphing, all of a sudden. That said, it's very, very, very minimal. We don't experience big issues with Nagios. And yet, it is why we introduced the idea of having a geo-redundancy solution, so that we can also, if something happens, immediately switch and then concentrate to work efficiently on the one having issues.

We use the support forum. In fact, it's part of the license. Even if you're just a member of the forum, you can still receive quick responses. We use it a lot and we ask questions. I can say that I'm happy with the way they eventually reply to you as they at least help, in any case. We had situations where we used support while we debugged everything ourselves. Through the years, and in 2008, we started merging all of our stuff onto the Nagios platform. Truthfully, in the last three to four years, I haven't seen that many massive issues. The platform is quite stable. Therefore, we don't use support too much.

We previously used ManageEngine.

I'm also familiar with Zabbix, for example, as it's quite the same concept. The difference is that maybe Nagios was a little bit easier for deployments.

We did a POC with DataDog as well and have begun to work with BigPanda.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It's pretty straightforward. 

There is the Nagios Core, which is free. Then, of course, you have the Nagios XI, which is paid.

I found that lately when we went to renew the license, the difference was a little bit higher. It was around a higher percentage different than last year. That made us a little bit concerned. For a point in time, I was just checking to see if there is something that might go head to head with Nagios and maybe be a little bit cheaper. While browsing and checking out a few, I met also with the Pandora MS and looked at it as a less expensive option.

I've been looking at this solution in comparison to Pandora.

We are a customer of Nagios, actually. We provide the monitoring solution within the company.

It's a virtualized solution, however, it's not really on a cloud as we typically have our own data centers. We applied it on a Hypervisor platform. It's a virtualized solution. Then, of course, we opt for the redundancy part by having different data centers. 

It's the same setup as Zabbix as well. Typically, you have a number of data centers globally, and then you concentrate it, for example, in our case, to various data centers and we usually do redundancy for. Therefore, we have the active solution and the standby solution, just in case there is a disaster.

If you are a mid-sied company with an eye on expansion, this solution is very good. I'd recommend it to others. it's easy to use and to deploy.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We use the solution in order to collect large amounts of data to monitor our network, switches, and firewall.

It provides an easy and powerful solution to network monitoring so I can pay attention to other concerns.

The most valuable feature is the setup wizard. The wizard just asks you for simple details and automatically starts collecting logs. It will give you some hints to configure your login on remote devices.

For enterprise users, the product would be better if it came with dedicated plugins. It has an online store for plugins and additional features, but most of the plugins we have are mostly open source. These open source plugins do not have a lot of documentation. We have to try to figure out how to use them on our own. They have good documentation for their own products and because of that, we have details to easily use their product as they have a guide. There is no documentation on the plugin site. They need more documentation for the plugins.

Besides that, there's nothing more that I would add as the product covers my current needs. Maybe I would like a lower price. That is maybe a problem they could fix.

We have absolutely no problem with the stability of the solution. I have no problem with the system or the setup. I want to do more to master the system and harness its capability, but that is my limitation.

Technical support is very good but is very expensive. It is becoming more and more expensive just like the upgrade. The incredibly high prices are a very bad move on their part. I know everything is got to go up but this seems too much at a time. They also have some requirements for the support licensing that is very complicated. You have to have a password and you pay for a limited number of calls. For the price they are selling it, It should be okay to call them anytime.

The setup was very straightforward. We did not have to create a complicated strategy. We just installed the server and add the devices that were most urgent for me to monitor. I just added the devices and it was as simple as that.

We implemented it on our own in a very short period of time.

The license and support are very expensive. You pay separately for each and the licensing is a little complicated. With a company like Cisco which may be expensive, the support is included. This product costs more than even Cisco. The support is not as easy to contact.

It is hard not to consider other solutions now because of the advice of other CIOs and their experience with open source products that save them a lot of money. It may not always save time because they can be more difficult to use. That can be a trade-off.

The price of the licensing is very high, even for a big company. There are good open source products in the market that we could use for free and other companies I know are using them because of the price. Mostly because of the price of the product and the cost of tech support, I would rate this an eight out of ten. The product itself is very good.

We use this solution for monitoring the status of our hard drives, as well as bandwidth utilization. Essentially, we monitor all of the necessary statuses for our servers.

This solution is very good for monitoring infrastructure. It is simply to use, and you can receive notifications by email.

This solution would be improved with the inclusion of additional services. Monitoring streaming services is an example of something that is not currently supported, so in order to handle this, I would have to write a script. Scripts like this should be included in the next version of the solution.

I would like to see support for notification via SMS. 

The solution is very stable, although sometimes we have had problems with the database in cases where we had a large number of roles and services. There have been cases of database corruption that had to be repaired.

Scalability is very good, and I have no problem with it. The configuration is such that you can add hosts or monitoring services very easily.

We have four security administrators who use this system.

I have not needed to contact technical support. There are webinars and other information available that I have made use of. If you have a problem then you can copy and paste the error into a search engine and find the solution easily.

I have used other solutions from vendors such as McAfee, but Nagios XI is the best solution when compared with others.

I feel that the initial setup is difficult for a beginner. You must be skilled at using the Linux operating system to install and start up the solution.

I performed the installation myself, learning about it from a webinar that was available online.

I am in the process of testing a large number of solutions, and this is the best one.

This is a very good solution and it is simple to use, for any company. It is also very stable and you can monitor a large number of services with no problem. You can also create many users and have them receive notification by email. It's very good.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The solution has a lot of plugins and scripts integrated with it. It is very good for monitoring.

The product does not have SAP monitoring. When I was using the solution, it did not have a dashboard. We had to manually connect to the database, collect information and create the visuals.

I used the solution in my previous organization.

The product is stable.

The solution is not scalable. Less than twenty people were using the solution in my previous organization.

The product's initial setup is more complex than that of Elastic.

The deployment process depends on the version we use. To deploy the solution, we must install the package on the server, put the correct syntax, point to the correct scripts, and download the monitoring scripts. Based on the data we collect, we can build a basic dashboard.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

If you make the whole monitoring tool agentless, it would be a really good addition since it is currently one of the pain points in this product.

The tool's incident prediction is not too good, as it gives too many false positives.

The tool's AI model needs to be fixed.

I have been using Nagios XI for two years.

The solution's technical support is okay. I am always with the people on the support side.

Considering the task force that I use for my support team, I can provide much more time in their hands so that they can do other things, which is something that has been a nice addition.

I think it is a little on the expensive side. The technical support is good. As it is not an agentless tool, I think it is expensive. The tool does offer useful features.

In terms of the satisfaction levels with the tool, I can say I am okay with the product.

In terms of the network size or complexity, it has not impacted anything on our side. I would say that the tool is good at adaptation but can be really bad for the team.

The tool is not the best to be recommended to others. Datadog is a better tool than Nagios XI.

I rate the tool a six and a half out of ten.

We are planning to use this solution for network server monitoring. We have had training for deployment on our end, but it is not yet in production use.

The most valuable feature is the monitoring of processes.

I think that the process of installing this solution can be improved because it is quite hectic.

The interface could be more user-friendly.

I think that stability is quite good. 

We are still in the pre-production stage and have only two IT administrators using the solution. There will be six users once it moves to production.

We have not been in contact with technical support.

We are currently using Zabbix.

The installation of this solution is a bit complex, and it requires that you are running it fully.

One of the issues that we experienced was getting the source to a computer where we could deploy it. That took some time.

We are handling the implementation in-house. There are two of us who took care of the pre-production deployment and will continue with the implementation.

We are using the free version of this solution.

We are testing out this solution in addition to Zabbix.

We will soon be moving this solution into production. However, it is a bit complex and difficult for a first-time user.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

For monitoring HFC network from the headend to end-of-line, mainly power supplies (transponders).

Integrating events and performance data between multi-vendor network elements and management systems.

All of them, but mainly: 

• Highly-efficient server performance monitoring engine
• Configuration wizards
• Infrastructure management
• Configuration snapshot.

• Developing a tool for KPIs and KQIs
• WebUI should be improved (visual aspect) and should incorporate non-relational databases.