Od 18 lat pomagamy firmom
w wyborze lepszego oprogramowania
Checkmk
Czym jest Checkmk?
Checkmk: system monitorowania IT dla infrastruktury lokalnej i chmurowej (serwery, sieci, pamięć masowa, bazy danych i inne), który umożliwia administratorom, menedżerom IT i zespołom DevOps szybkie identyfikowanie i rozwiązywanie problemów w całej infrastrukturze IT.
Ponad 2000 klientów komercyjnych i wielu innych użytkowników open source codziennie korzysta z Checkmk, aby zapewnić wysoką dostępność i wydajność. Rozwiązanie jest dostępne w 4 edycjach: Raw (open source), Enterprise, Cloud i MSP.
Kto korzysta z produktu: Checkmk?
Firmy różnej wielkości, a także instytucje rządowe, często z wieloma centrami danych i konfiguracjami na bardzo dużą skalę. Checkmk umożliwia zespołom ITOps i DevOps działanie z najwyższą wydajnością.
Nie jesteś pewien, czy Checkmk to dobre rozwiązanie?
Porównaj z popularnymi rozwiązaniami alternatywnymi
Checkmk
Inne najlepsze rozwiązania alternatywne dla produktu Checkmk
Checkmk – Recenzje od zweryfikowanych użytkowników
Best monitoring solution you can find on the market.
Komentarze: We deliver in a sequenced order in short interval parts to our customer (JIT/JIS). The IT systems are crucial in the supply chain to the customer. With check_mk we are able to alert an issue with this IT systems before it becomes a problem for the delivery process. check_mk is used in a highly distributed way at over 300 sites with one central configuration platform which allow us to quickly implement new monitoring solutions and standards.
Zalety:
check_mk is a very intuitive, easy to use and easy to setup monitoring system. It scales perfect vertically and also horizontal. it provides already a huge amount of monitoring functionalities for a lot of environments and it is quite simple extensible with own functionalities. Beside state based monitoring it has also a complete solution to integrate event based monitoring. With the Business Intelligence we are able to picture our mission critical processes in monitoring and able to simulate the impact of outages to the business.
Wady:
The design of the front-end is a bit vintage style and is in hour highly distributed implementation somehow slow.
Check_MK as a single pane of glass
Komentarze: Providing infrastructure monitoring to everyone involved in IT provision, whatever their level of technical knowledge. I did the initial deployment, and then sold the product to the rest of the team managing the infrastructure. I found it easy to set up, and to import an initial set of hosts, and fairly simple to explain to others.
Zalety:
We are using the Raw Edition, monitoring over 7000 services on nearly 400 hosts. Although we have another product for monitoring switches and routers, we have integrated status updates from that product into the Check_MK view, so we have a single pane of glass. Almost every aspect of the software can be configured through a web page. It's relatively easy to extend and even modify the supplied checks, and if you do, you don't prevent future upgrades, because the upgrade process supports merging of modifications. The agents are read-only, so inherently more secure, and pretty simple to install. The BI feature enables us to provide monitoring of the business services people actually use, as well as the underlying infrastructure. When there are failures, you can drill down to see which component actually failed, and when. The automatic generation of graphs makes it easy to do trend analysis.
Wady:
I didn't find it easy to understand the way to use tags. The difference between maintenance windows on hosts and those on services is also not obvious, and similarly acknowledgements on hosts and on services. But these are minor issues.
Best Budget monitoring software, but you get what you pay for
Komentarze: It's free, so that's great. You will sink more time into it to get it running as you like compared to other slicker monitoring programs, it's up to you if that's a fair trade off.
Zalety:
Lots of features and customization, very affordable
Wady:
Overwhelming amount of options that aren't that well organized or explained, tricky to manage services and hosts
Rozważane rozwiązania alternatywne:
Outstanding Customize, Scale & Performance vs. easy of use
Komentarze:
We use Check_MK to 24x7 monitor our IT-Infrastructure from bare metal devices, the network, to our apllications which are hosted onpremis and in the cloud. The monitoring is very stable and performant. We use aswell the BI features to build dependency trees to make the availablility of single applications/IT-Services visible for all our users and the management. In that case we make use of the API to integrate those numbers in our Intranet and existing Management dashboards.
We picked Check_MK because we liked the many integration possibilties and becase it scales.
Zalety:
We liked the thousend of customizing possibilities to build the monitoring for our needs. Another plus is that CMK comes with a lot of checks for different devices included so you can monitor the most things right away. The new Business Intelligence "module" and the Reporting features is awesome :-) There is a free & paid version available, so you can start free and upgrade if you need more features. The new and automatically generated Network Topology is very nice
Wady:
- Finding the correct ruleset to tune the values for a check is sometimes not that easy :-) - Handling in general and the UI could be more intuitive/easier - Troubleshooting is sometimes not easy, and requieres you to be aware of the commandline of cmk and the correct paths to check the logs. (What about a cool Log overview directly in the Web UI? And a log bundle collector to report issues in the forum/support.)
Excellent product that lacks in documentation and examples
Komentarze: Overall the application looks good. Not so much of a learning curve if you’re moving away from Nagios like I am.
Zalety:
Best bang for your buck. Constantly updated to include new features, enhancements, bug and security fixes. Active community that is very helpful.
Wady:
Documentation and examples are lacking though it does look like they are trying to catch up. Conferences only seem to be in Europe.
