I think it would be a great thing if something like "mailgraph" was integrated in ispCP. I have looked on http://mailgraph.schweikert.ch/ and I will try to install it on my production server there is running ispCP RC2.

It would be a nice tool for administrators to monitor the load on the mail server I think. Please give me your opinion.

Best Regards
Ronni Poulsen

yeah that looks really nice.

It's just the question if those things shouldn't be done better by apps like munin, zabbix, nagios and so on.
Because that stats aren't domain-specific so its more a "how is the health/ busy state of the whole machine atm" thing.

I'm not quite sure if this has to be in there. Although its nice to know about it.
Perhaps we can find a way to integrate munin graphs somehow ?

I know this tool, it's nice - as Ephigenie said :-)

But we have to think about what is he main task for ispcp (omega). If we want a full service thing like plesk then we should integrate it or we should have the focus on a cool and flexible control panel with the possibility to integrate such tools (withour integrate them into ispCP). I vote for the second...
What we can do: have a link to mailgraph at the website somewhere... or when the project has grown - in the docu as a hint...

just my 2 cents...
/Joximu

I already started a Thread about it --> http://www.isp-control.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=410

The good one - it is damn easy to install under Debian.
I wanted to test how it works. But i never get a answer.

It would be nice if we can include some that can more than only one thing.
Like munin, there is also a HowTo in the Forum from me.

The difference to zabbix or nagios is that they are monitoring and
not only create stats like munin or cacti. Is this needed ?

Yeah i think monitoring makes only sense if there's also a response about services running or not or running above some user-definable limits...

that maybe is a great option for the future of ispCP as well.
Because if we support multi-server solutions as well, than keeping a lot of servers in view ain't that easy as to keep one server monitored.

So i think admins will be glad about just defining limits for their servers and beeing notified if those are reached or if something else (service/server) not responding happens.

For sure make monitoring sense, but not only on one host.
In some future version with multi-server is this option no question.

But when the monitoring and the services that should be monitored are on the same machine - it make this no sense for me.
Let the mailservice like Postfix go down on the host, you never will get a mail about this Problem

yeah but there're other ways to submit an alert if its urgent (like sms)
usually these got submitted via calling an url (can be done via bash-script or similar)
so as long as there's a network available you can send alerts.

Yeah of course - there are many ways.
But in my eyes it make only _really_ sense when a Monitoringsystem is extern from the system that is monitored.

Ok - lets test it, why not!?
I mean that Nagios has something like a self helping system that can start or reboot the service after it goes down.

I vote for munin...I'm useing for my production server and I'm pleased with it....munin is more for admins and not for end users (clients). I guess statistics from CP is enough for clients.

Hac!..my opinion.