It's not perfect and suffers from the same problems as other monitoring systems, but given the options it's better then most systems with similar scope.
P.S. I am not affiliated with them in any way shape or form. Just used it for a little while.
It's not perfect and suffers from the same problems as other monitoring systems, but given the options it's better then most systems with similar scope.
P.S. I am not affiliated with them in any way shape or form. Just used it for a little while.
Right off the bat, here are differences between barrier to entry (ignoring the "enterprise" stench and consulting/contracting emphasis for the moment):
Installation:
Graphite:
Homepage -> links to pip / github / launchpad
Zabbix:
Homepage -> Downloads -> Download -> RHEL binaries?!?! -> Oh nevermind, sourceforge link.....
Sending metrics to the system:
Graphite:
Homepage -> documentation -> getting your data into graphite
Zabbix:
I'll be honest, I just gave up.
It just gets worse from there. I don't want to become my companies "Zabbix guy". I want something that I can just get working as rapidly as possible with as little heartache as possible. Particularly heartache that seems suspiciously intentional considering the number of ways you can find yourself on a "hire us to train you!" page on their site...Zabbix reminds me of all the things I hate about working for a PHB who makes technical decisions at large corporations. Maybe that is an unfair take-away, but that take-away is entirely their own fault.
High barrier to entry. Maybe you think the barrier to entry for Zabbix is low enough, and maybe you think it is a better project once you get over that bar, but what is undeniable is that Graphite very clearly has a lower barrier to entry.
If you want to know why so many people use Graphite instead of Zabbix, that is the reason. If you want to tell all of those people that they are wrong for going that route, be my guest, but that isn't what the discussion is about.
I've answered your question, I feel, entirely accurately.