Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1 2019
Unit Code MN506
Unit Title System Management
Assessment Type Individual Assignment 1
Assessment
Title Server Availability Monitoring and Metrics.
Purpose of the assessment
(with ULO
Mapping) The purpose of the assignment is to compare free (open source) server monitoring tools based on the basic metrics of checking availability. Students will be able to complete the following ULOs:
1. Analyse and compare various server management systems
2. Compare emerging tools and techniques for system management
Weight 10%
Total Marks 50
Word limit 1500 – 2000 words
Due Date 01/05/2019 5:00PM
Submission Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using IEEE referencing style.
Extension • If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly on AMS. You must submit this application three working days prior to the due date of the assignment.
Further information is available at:
http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policiesprocedures-and-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment
Academic
Misconduct
• Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policiesprocedures-and-guidelines/Plagiarism-Academic-Misconduct-PolicyProcedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description.
Dr Mansoor Hyder y: Dr Javed Baloch

Assignment Description
Monitoring availability of servers and services is one of the core issues that companies face in their day to day operations. However, there are always some challenges such as at what metrics the availability of hardware, services and applications may be considered. Additionally, it is important to understand that what resources are being used by the servers and services while being up and running.
For further reading, could refer to the article “IT Infrastructure-Monitoring Tools” [1]. The article is available on the IEEE Explore, which could be easily accessed.
The assessment requires students to compare server availability monitoring tools Including (1) Nagios Core, (2) Ganglia, (3) CollectD, (4) Spiceworks, (5) Cacti, (6) Zabbix, (7) Icinga, (8) OpenNMS, and (9) WhatsUp Gold, in terms of the metrics given in the following. The students are required to submit a report, which includes:
1. Comparison of the above server availability monitoring tools to check their performance in terms of:
a) Disk usage
b) CPU monitoring
c) Process Monitoring
d) Bandwidth Monitoring
e) Resource Measuring
f) Overall availability
2. Discuss and evaluate in detail the server availability monitoring architecture.
3. Propose a solution to avoid data vulnerability in server availability monitoring tools.
4. Discuss the impact of failure prediction on server availability monitoring.
References
[1] J. Hernantes, G. Gallardo and N. Serrano, -IT Infrastructure-Monitoring Tools- in IEEE Software, vol. 32, no. 04, pp. 88-93, 2015.doi: 10.1109/MS.2015.96
Marking criteria:
Section to be included in the report Description of the section Marks
Introduction Outline of the report ( in 3-4 sentences) 4
Report Layout Report layout, style and language 5
Comparison To compare server availability monitoring tools such as (1) Nagios Core, (2) Ganglia, (3) CollectD, (4) Spiceworks, (5) Cacti, (6) Zabbix, (7) Icinga, (8) OpenNMS, and (9) WhatsUp Gold, in terms of:
a. Disk usage
b. CPU monitoring
c. Process Monitoring
d. Bandwidth Monitoring
e. Resource Measuring
f. Overall availability 18
Evaluation Discuss and evaluate in detail the server availability monitoring architecture. 7
Identification and Analysis Discuss in detail and draw Server availability monitoring architecture. 6
Propose Propose and evaluate a solution to avoid data vulnerability in server availability monitoring tools 4
Conclusion Write summary of the report 3
Reference style Follow IEEE reference style 3
Total 50
Marking Rubric for Assignment #1: Total Marks 50
Grade Mark HD
40 – 50 DI 35 – 39 CR 30 – 34 P 25 – 30 Fail
25
Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Introduction
/4 All topics are pertinent and covered in depth. Ability to think critically and
source material is demonstrated Topics are relevant and soundly analysed. Generally relevant and analysed. Some relevance and briefly presented. This is not relevant to the assignment topic.
Report Layout
/5 Exceptional report layout, style and language used Very good report
layout, style and language used Good report layout, style and language used Acceptable report layout, style and language used. Poor report layout, style and language used.
Comparison
/18 Finding is clearly linked and well justified Finding is clearly linked and justified Finding is linked and
convincing
Finding is not linked and
unjustified
Finding is not available
Evaluation
/7 Exceptional evaluation of server availability monitoring Very good evaluation of server availability monitoring Good
evaluation of server
availability monitoring Adequate evaluation of server
availability monitoring Poor understanding of server availability monitoring
Identification
and Analysis
/6 Identified the security and privacy issues and provided excellent justification Identified the security and privacy issues and provided
good
justification Identified the security and privacy issues
and provided valid justification Identified the security and privacy issues and failed to provide valid justification Failed, to identify the security and privacy issues
Propose
/4 Exceptional proposal of avoiding data vulnerability Good
proposal of avoiding data vulnerability Balanced proposal of avoiding data vulnerability Acceptable proposal of avoiding data vulnerability Failed to propose avoiding data vulnerability
Conclusion
/3 Logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments Consistency logical and convincing Mostly consistent logical and convincing Adequate cohesion and conviction Argument is confused and disjointed
Reference style
/3 Clear styles with excellent source of references. Clear referencing style Generally good referencing style Sometimes
clear referencing style Lacks consistency with many errors