newsvatore

Agreed. Not to mention the name is a little unfortunate. Say the name too quickly, and you'll probably end up in a database somewhere... :\

Nope. Never seemed appealing to me, as I have easily installed Nagios with the graphing plugins and other added features in the past by hand - for a few companies at least.

One of the biggest wins of Icinga2 for Nagios shops is the fact that it can be sort of retrofitted to work with your existing Nagios hosts using NRPE.

Of course, NRPE is highly insecure and this is not recommended, blah blah, but it works, and I'm sure there are more than just a few people still using and older version of NRPE in production.

Nagios is great, but Icinga fixed some serious issues with it that were long-standing. At least in the beginning, the reason for the fork was extremely clear, and there was no doubt the fork made sense. As of right now, I'm not so sure there's any huge advantage of Icinga 1.x over Nagios 3.x, other than a better UI.

However, Icinga2 and icingaweb2 are both coming along very nicely. In a position I just recently left, I was using Icinga2 in production, and I really loved it for its performance and clustering capabilities. It really blows Nagios out of the water in those aspects. When you configure the active/passive "master" nodes in a datacenter, the checks get split between the two nodes with only one updating the DB (per the docs), and in practice, this seemed to keep the load very low for us, even with over 20,000 checks polling at least once per minute.

I realize the story is more about history than a direct comparison between Icinga 1.x and Nagios, but I just wanted to share our experience with anyone who may be considering the two options - don't forget to consider Icinga2!

It should also be noted that I still really love Nagios, and the later versions have resolved at least some of the issues we've had with it in the past.

There was at least one clue provided by the name of the site...