Ahhh. That sucks. I've never put our Zenoss installs through quite that much traffic. That's a shame to hear. On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
Small shop people wise with millions of customers and tens of thousands of application and log-derived data sources. We use Zenoss extensively and mostly we keep having to make decisions what data to pull out of it so it can function.
I have previously worked at larger enterprises which had millions of data sources, and Zenoss couldn't dream of handling that, no matter how much hardware we threw at it.
On Dec 24, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
Very small shop with millions of data sources?
lol?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>wrote:
On Dec 20, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
Zenoss works very well
Um... you lost me after the first 4 words. Zenoss might work acceptably for very, very small organizations with very small amounts of data. Zenoss is incapable of scaling to even moderate-sized data sets with tens of thousands of data sources, nevermind medium sized data sets with millions of data sources. I work at a very small shop with three total engineers and Zenoss was unable to scale beyond 1/4 of our data sources with dozens of cores and hundreds of gigabytes of RAM on numerous systems. It doesn't actually use any of these, the internal deadlocks in the architecture make it impossible for it to scale.
That Zenoss might make a better IP management tool than what it is purported and sold to do... amuses.
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0