Voicing your questions about Checkmk Development

[mike1098 (Michael FRANK)]

@Anders

Checkmk monitoring of Checkmk

Maybe I misunderstood you but basically checkmk monitor itself out of the box. I recommend to open a dedicated thread to discuss. Possibly the community can help to find a solution for you.

@Anders

All customers are not monitoring 5 hosts

I agree to that.

@Anders

CI/QA

In several domains we are hardly missing CI/QA. The testing of the code is a real burden to us.

@Anders

Security

The attempt to make the agent highly secure failed because it introduced other security risks.
See also:

Security concerns with Checkmk Werk 14079

Hello Community, I am a little concerned about Werk 14079. To register a host, users need the following permissions: <ul> <li>Agent pairing.</li> <li>Read access to the host, either via "Read access to all hosts and folders" or via via contact groups.</li> <li>Write access to the host, either via "Write access to all hosts and folders" or via "Modify existing hosts" and write access to the specific host via contact groups.</li> </ul> We use in our organization tools like Ivanti or RedHat S…

At least because of that we have to go on with the legacy agent. Hopefully it will be supported in future versions.

@Anders

Local Checks / MRPE / Classical / Nagios

It depends on how your change management process and your organization looks like. We have segregated the duty between monitoring architecture/development and monitoring run team and with help of change management we have any deployment documented. I can understand that this may different at different customers. If you want to discuss in detail I recommend a dedicated thread.

@Anders

Roadmaps

Yes that’s the part about transparency.