by Dave Rosenberg

NetworkWorld charts open source systems management

analysis
Jun 20, 20071 min

NetworkWorld compared the OSS system management products from Zenoss, Hyperic and Groundwork. NWW results: 1. Zenoss-4.0 Pros: Excellent discovery of network resources; intuitive user interface. Cons: Needs a visual design environment for customizing reports. 2. Hyperic-3.6 Pros: Impressive, complex thresholds; good reports. Cons: Remediation is a very manual process. 3. Groundwork-3.1 Pros: Good, basic network

NetworkWorld compared the OSS system management products from Zenoss, Hyperic and Groundwork.

NWW results:

1. Zenoss-4.0

Pros: Excellent discovery of network resources; intuitive user interface.

Cons: Needs a visual design environment for customizing reports.

2. Hyperic-3.6

Pros: Impressive, complex thresholds; good reports.

Cons: Remediation is a very manual process. 3. Groundwork-3.1

Pros: Good, basic network monitoring.

Cons: Lacks dashboards; no ability to track Service Level Agreements. One potentially interesting factoid is that each of these products has a different technology behind it. Zenoss is Python, Hyperic is Java and I think Groundwork is Perl with a bunch of PHP and Java. FiveRuns (not reviewed) was all written in Ruby so I guess you can solve the same problem in many different ways. (Apologies if I got those programming languages wrong.)