<div><br clear="all">\\Greg<br><br><br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Dan Stromberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dstromberglists@gmail.com">dstromberglists@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">There appears to be multiple ways of doing the local checks on Windows<br>systems, and while there is commentary on the strengths and weaknesses<br>
of them in google, I've found the contrasts somewhat vague.<br><br>So please allow me to describe my understanding of the strengths and<br>weaknesses here, and hopefully People In the Know(tm) will jump in and<br>correct me where I'm off.<br>
<br>Here goes:<br><br><br>nsclient:<br>* Both a windows service and a protocol,<br>* I've not looked at this one that much, as it appears to be superseded<br>by nsclient++.<br>* Connected to using Nagios plugin check_nt.<br>
<br><br>nsclient++<br>* A windows service that can serve up either or both of the nsclient and<br>NRPE protocols.<br>* Has an assortment of DLL's implementing the various checks, whether<br>you connect using the nsclient protocol (check_nt) or the NRPE protocol<br>
(check_nrpe).<br>* Allows you to continue using check_nt, which is nice if you already<br>have some nagios checks based on that.<br>* Allows you to start using check_nrpe for some things, but those things<br>appear to require a dll? As such, it seems to paint you into a corner;<br>
if you get a bunch of NRPE checks going based on nsclient++, it appears<br>that a future move to NRPE_NT is made more complicated.<br>* Granted, you could probably write a dll that just accepts arguments<br>and treats them as a bash/powershell command. Or is there something<br>
that already does this in nsclient++?<br><br></blockquote>
<div>
<div>I'm running batch-file based checks using nsclient++ & check_nrpe witout using a dll. nsclient++ does this just fine. The config take a little investigation, but once you understand it, its easy.</div></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">nrpe_nt<br>* A windows service that serves up the NRPE protocol, just like on *ix.<br>* Allows you to use the same sort of plugin architecture for local<br>
checks that is used on *ix - enabling one to use the many plugins for<br>Windows at<br><a href="http://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Plugins/Uncategorized/Operating-Systems/Windows-NRPE" target="_blank">http://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Plugins/Uncategorized/Operating-Systems/Windows-NRPE</a><br>
* Is this the reason why people are saying that NRPE is the way forward,<br>not NSClient?<br><br><br>sshd<br>* Available as a cygwin sshd or via freesshd. Speaks the ssh protocol(s)<br>* Allows you to use the same sort of plugin architecture for local<br>
checks that is used on *ix - again enabling one to use the many plugins<br>for Windows at<br><a href="http://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Plugins/Uncategorized/Operating-Systems/Windows-NRPE" target="_blank">http://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Plugins/Uncategorized/Operating-Systems/Windows-NRPE</a><br>
* Perhaps a little slower than NRPE, especially if you use NRPE without SSL<br>* Much better authenticated than NRPE_NT, because NRPE_NT just uses<br>IP-based authentication, while ssh is RSA public key with mutual auth<br>
* Probably harder to lock down to a list of specific commands than NRPE_NT<br><br><br>SNMP<br>* Another possibility I've not looked into much, at least not in a<br>Nagios context.<br>* Decent authentication in version 3, not so good in versions 1 and 2c.<br>
* Allows access to a LOT of stuff<br><br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>We use SNMP for hardware monitoring of WIndows servers in addition to nsclient++</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>I'll add that one could probably run nsclient++ with the nsclient<br>protocol enabled and nsclient++'s NRPE protocol support disabled, and<br>
also run NRPE_NT - on the same machine. It seems like this would allow<br>compatibility with existing check definitions, and give a nicer path<br>forward - because where new plugins are needed, they could just be<br>scripts in your favorite scripting language; they wouldn't need to be<br>
dll's in Windows-specific C or something.<br><br><br>OK folks - where am I off? Please tear it to shreds.<br><br>Thanks!<br><br></blockquote>
<div><a href="file://greg/">\\Greg</a></div>
<div> </div></div>