Which one is best for cinga2 installation, Virtual server or Physical server?

We are in process to setup a icinga2 server for monitoring the devices. what should we use as a platform? should we use a physical server or should we use a Virtual Server? what are the pros and cons

I would say this comes down to one question - how many “devices” do you plan
to monitor?

Unless it is a very large number (at least several hundred), I see no reason
to require a physical server for icinga.

Other than that, the pros and cons of physical vs. virtual are just the same
as usual; there’s nothing specific to Icinga about this.

Antony.

Hi and welcome!

Virtual Hosts for monitoring have their obvious benefits you get with every virtualised environments. On the other hand hardware hosts may be an even better choice in many cases. You have to decide what’s more important to you:

  • Virtualisation often has some way of high availability setting where you can move a VM from one hypervisor to another. Hardware instead is completely independent from your virtualisation platform and may even run when all other hosts are down. At least one of our customer has their monitoring hosts in a dedicated rack with an extra dedicated UPS and extra redundant internet connection
  • Virtualisation may help with using all the resources your hypervisors have but on the other hand monitoring, especially graphing, may need lots of resources, esp. iops, which might then be missing for other hosts so many users opt for hardware with local disks
  • Virtualised systems normally offer some way of snapshotting for backups. You can have something similar with e.g. LVM, but that’s definitely something that works better in virtualised environments.

I normally opt for hardware because I like the idea that the system is still available when everything else was burnt down.

Our customers use both so you’re definitely not forced to use the one or the other.