Pros of ntopng

• More comprehensive network monitoring and analysis capabilities
• Web-based GUI for easier visualization and interaction
• Supports a wider range of protocols and network types

Cons of ntopng

• Higher system resource requirements
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

ntopng (C++):

void NetworkInterface::getStats(lua_State* vm) {
  lua_newtable(vm);
  lua_push_int_table_entry(vm, "numPackets", stats.getNumPackets());
  lua_push_int_table_entry(vm, "numBytes", stats.getNumBytes());
  // ... more stats
}

nethogs (C):

void process_packet(u_char *userdata, const struct pcap_pkthdr *header, const u_char *packet) {
    struct ip *ip_hdr = (struct ip *)(packet + sizeof(struct ether_header));
    struct tcphdr *tcp_hdr = (struct tcphdr *)(packet + sizeof(struct ether_header) + sizeof(struct ip));
    // ... process packet data
}

ntopng offers a more feature-rich and user-friendly network monitoring solution with its web interface and extensive protocol support. However, it requires more resources and has a steeper learning curve. nethogs, on the other hand, is a simpler, lightweight tool focused specifically on per-process network usage monitoring. It's easier to set up and use but lacks the comprehensive analysis capabilities of ntopng.

Pros of Glances

• Comprehensive system monitoring with a wide range of metrics (CPU, memory, network, disk, processes, etc.)
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, Windows)
• Web-based interface and REST API for remote monitoring

Cons of Glances

• Higher resource usage due to its comprehensive nature
• More complex setup and configuration compared to Nethogs

Code Comparison

Glances (Python):

from glances_api import GlancesApi

glances = GlancesApi(host='localhost', port=61208)
cpu_percent = glances.getCpu()['total']
print(f"CPU usage: {cpu_percent}%")

Nethogs (C++):

#include "nethogs.h"

void callback(int action, const char *name, int pid, float sent_kbs, float recv_kbs) {
    printf("%s: Sent %.2f KB/s, Received %.2f KB/s\n", name, sent_kbs, recv_kbs);
}

NethogsMonitorRecord *monitor = nethogsmonitor_init();
nethogsmonitor_loop(monitor, callback);

Summary

Glances offers a more comprehensive system monitoring solution with cross-platform support and a web interface, making it suitable for users who need detailed insights into their system's performance. However, it may consume more resources and require more setup than Nethogs.

Nethogs, on the other hand, focuses specifically on per-process network usage monitoring, making it a lightweight and straightforward option for users primarily interested in network traffic analysis. Its simplicity comes at the cost of fewer features compared to Glances.

Pros of btop

• More comprehensive system monitoring, including CPU, memory, disks, and network
• Highly customizable interface with themes and layout options
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD)

Cons of btop

• Higher resource usage due to more extensive monitoring capabilities
• Steeper learning curve for configuration and customization

Code Comparison

btop (C++):

void Cpu::draw(int h, bool force) {
    if (h < 1) return;
    if (force) Cpu::collect();
    draw_bg();
    draw_cpus(h);
    draw_clock();
}

nethogs (C):

void process_init() {
    Process * newproc = new Process(m_pid, m_name);
    ProcList * newitem = new ProcList(newproc, NULL);
    if (processes == NULL) {
        processes = newitem;
    } else {
        newitem->next = processes;
        processes = newitem;
    }
}

Summary

btop offers a more feature-rich system monitoring experience with a polished interface, while nethogs focuses specifically on per-process network usage. btop is better suited for users who want a comprehensive system overview, while nethogs is ideal for those primarily interested in network traffic analysis.

Pros of Netdata

• Comprehensive system monitoring with a wide range of metrics
• Real-time, interactive web-based dashboard
• Extensive plugin system for custom data collection

Cons of Netdata

• Higher resource usage due to its comprehensive nature
• More complex setup and configuration compared to Nethogs

Code Comparison

Nethogs (main.cpp):

int main(int argc, char** argv) {
    process_args(argc, argv);
    init_ui();
    process_network_data();
    return 0;
}

Netdata (main.c):

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    netdata_init();
    parse_command_line(argc, argv);
    web_server_config_options();
    web_server();
    return 0;
}

Key Differences

• Nethogs focuses specifically on per-process network usage monitoring
• Netdata provides a broader system monitoring solution
• Nethogs is written in C++, while Netdata is primarily in C
• Netdata offers a web-based interface, whereas Nethogs is command-line based
• Nethogs is lighter and more focused, while Netdata is feature-rich but more resource-intensive

Both tools serve different purposes: Nethogs for targeted network usage monitoring, and Netdata for comprehensive system monitoring including network metrics.