Best versions for Cacti

[stefandewal]

Hi,

I have cacti running on a CentOS 7 server which has some real strange problems. It is a clean install of cacti 1.1.38 and spine. I use Mariadb 10.3 and php 7.1

As i said earlier, i have into strange bugs which can also be found on the internet. They can be fixed, but we have an older version running 0.8.x and it has no real problems.

So my question is:

Which version of php/mariadb/cacti is best on your opinion running on CentOS 7 and why?

I really appreciate answers

[netniV]

There is generally bugs in every software, the real question is which are a problem for you and your operation. Personally, I like the latest versions of cacti. I found the earlier ones to be more complex when it comes to what knowledge you must have, like making sure you manually set your RRA file steps etc.

[Rno]

I have a cacti 0.8.8h in production, and not close to move to 1.x (I have 1.2 in test)
My prod version is more stable, use less resource.
My test version is always giving me error on DB access, lost of device that are not lost, spine resource problem, and so on.

[stefandewal]

i have 0.8 running like a charm. i have 1.1.38 and it gives me such a headache...

and ofcourse, every piece of software has its flaws.

but with everything i do with 1.1.38 it gives me errors.

[tertius]

On CentOS 7, I strictly run the distribution-provided original packages, i.e. php 5.4.16 and mariadb 5.5.60. And of course cacti 1.1.38 from the EPEL 7 repository. Works perfectly.

If it doesn't come with the distribution repository, it isn't usually worth installing. Or a better alternative can be found.
I frown on installing rpms from foreign repositories. There are always conflicts one way or the other, sooner or later.
I never install raw programs ("make install"). Install only from rpm. If there is something I absolutely need, but without rpm, I make a rpm myself.

Only as last resort, really and absolutely last resort, if all else fails and I have no choice, I use extra repositories that deliver newer generations from existing packages like mariadb 10 or php 7 under Centos 7. Usually, it's not worth the hassle as long as some software also runs under the stock versions.

[stefandewal]

Hi,

I've downgraded my php and mariadb version and now it is running pretty good.

Ive got php 5.4 and mariadb 5.5 running with cacti 1.1.38

I've tested cacti 0.8 and it running better then version 1.1.38. The memory and resource usage of 1.1.38 is way larger then 0.8

[TheWitness]

Guys,

Though you don't find me here much any more, I've been watching the Cacti 1.x developments closely for the last few years. Yes, the new version of Cacti requires more resources, and has been kind of buggy out of the gate. On the performance side, much of that is due to using InnoDB and the database tuning that is required for that storage engine to perform well. It's a bit slower on some things, which is why we recommend moving to more recent versions of MySQL and MariaDB where they have addressed a number of InnoDB performance issues.

As many of you know, I still use Cacti in my day to day stuff at IBM. They just don't allow me to participate actively on the forums or be directly involved in the core R&D any more. It's not that IBM does not like Cacti, we actually use it a lot. It's actually approved for internal use, which is cool. It was my choice, not theirs, and it's a long story.

So, as one of the founders of this thing, I'm super excited about the Cacti 1.2. We've never had so many developers, and we've now resolved so many of those issues that tore us apart previously (you know prior to me getting swallowed up by big blue).

So, buy new hardware, SSD's and NVMe's are a must. Remember in 1.2 you can distribute the Cacti load, both on the Web Server and Data Collector parts, and be confident that Cacti is still relevant (though I do love tools like Grafana, I seriously love them).

Regards,

Larry (aka TheWitness)