Icinga Reviews

Icinga is used for monitoring infrastructure devices like network devices, firewalls, and lots of servers. Linux, Windows, and many services are running on them using plugins, which are being distributed together with Icinga. We have developed some software in-house, so we use that as well.

The solution is deployed on-premises. I'm using version 2.9.

There are about 40 people using this solution.

The installations we have done were pretty complete, but we're always looking for other opportunities to install Icinga in our customers' networks. We're actively promoting Icinga to our customers.

There's a module called Icinga Director, which helps us configure the product using an intuitive interface through clicks instead of creating a text configuration. It's very helpful for us.

Regarding the experience, we are pretty excited about Icinga. 

We have found some problems with Nagios, and support isn't very responsive. When they are responsive, they tell us that they don't know how to solve the problem. I understand that can happen when you're using an open source product and not paying for support, so you can't get an SLA.

I have used Icinga for 18 months.

It's rock stable. We haven't had any crashes.

I would rate the stability as 10 out of 10.

The scalability was one of the advantages that we were really excited about. Using the satellite node is a big help. It's a well-thought-out feature. The scalability is one of the greatest advantages of Icinga.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

Technical support is welcoming, and they are trying to help, but it's apparent that there aren't many resources available. There aren't enough people to solve problems, which is understandable. Perhaps if we paid for premium support, the situation might be better. Right now, we aren't thinking about buying any support. We feel that we are technically savvy enough to use the product with our own support people.

We previously used Nagios. Icinga has many advantages in comparison.

We switched because Nagios is pretty old and the user interface is substandard from today's point of view. The most important reason was that you have to configure Nagios using text configuration files, which our customers aren't able to do.

With Icinga Director, this task is much easier. The configuration is easier with Icinga, once you get the hang of it. The learning curve is pretty steep, but it's much better than Nagios.

Initial setup was overwhelming. It was complex, and the learning curve was steep. During the first couple of weeks, it was hard to configure the basics. After following some instructions, you end up with an empty solution. It's basically a lot of software that's doing nothing. For us, it was pretty difficult, despite that we've already had a lot of experience with other monitoring solutions.

It took eight to ten weeks to set up everything correctly in the first installation. We migrated a pretty large installation, so we had to convert lots of configurations from Nagios to Icinga.

Before deployment, there was some analysis of the current situation because the old monitoring solution was pretty customized. We quickly learned that we would have to write some additional software, which we started doing around the time that we installed the solution. It was pretty straightforward.

Two people were involved in deployment.

For the first couple of months, we had to provide some support and maintenance to customers, but we taught them how to use the product effectively. In about six months, they were able to use the product on their own with minimal support from us.

Compared to other solutions, I would rate the setup as eight out of ten. 

We were the integrator, so everything was done in-house.

We're using the free version of Icinga.

I would rate this solution as seven out of ten.

I would like to see documentation written in English. There are some books that are written in German, but I don't read German. I would advise people to be prepared to allocate a lot of time for research during the initial configuration. Once they've managed to configure everything, then the day-to-day operations are pretty easy. The initial installation and configuration are pretty complex and difficult.

We primarily use the solution in order to monitor our systems, including the resources. 

We use it for monitoring our network devices and the systems for the server.

The monitoring has been good. 

It's a very interesting tool in general. 

We have found the solution to be stable. 

The solution can scale if necessary.

The installation and configuration are very complex.

I'd like the product to add notification features into the offering.

It would be ideal if they could work to simplify the product a bit.

I've been using the solution for about two to three years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

While we can scale a bit, currently, our network is fixed. That said, in general, if we wanted to, we could scale the product. 

Currently, only the ICT guys or ICT admins use it. It is not used by the whole company.

We do have plans to increase usage in the future. 

I've never worked with technical support. I've never had discussions with them and, therefore, cannot say if they are either helpful or responsive. 

I also currently use Zabbix.

Zabbix is the newest version. That means it is currently in the development stage. For simplicity at this point, it looks like Zabbix is simpler. Also, Zabbix's dashboard is very easy to customize for resource management. For example, for CPU, memory, disk space for storage, and specs like that, you can customize everything.

Both solutions are free to use.

The solution is difficult to set up and the configuration is also rather complex. It's not an easy process. We find the solution very tedious and difficult to troubleshoot.

The solution is free to use. 

We're not a partner. We are just a customer and end-user. 

We use the desktop version of the solution. 

Overall, it is a good product. I would rate it nine out of ten overall. 

The value of Icinga is that it has hundreds of plugins, so it's really easy to monitor pretty much anything. The huge spectrum of plugins enables users to monitor different technologies. That is Icinga's advantage. It is also open source.

The user experience – in terms of the usability of the application – could be improved. Another important thing is to work on a better tactical overview. 

Icinga should also be updated with the latest cloud capabilities. I don't know whether it does the monitoring of containers, but that would definitely be something important to hone in on. 

In general, the product does not look good. However, it does what it is supposed to do. So, the improvements should focus on usability and UI.

I have been using Icinga in multiple companies for at least seven years.

This is a stable product. We have seen no problems with stability. 

I have never had any problems with Icinga, so I will assume that it is scalable. 

I do not have any experience with Icinga's technical support. Our people have been able to use it without technical support so far. 

The initial setup was easy. 

We do not have any licensing costs. 

I do remember that we evaluated multiple products but I do not recall their names. 

I would recommend this product.