[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Re: ipmi sensor thresholds
From: |
Albert Chu |
Subject: |
Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Re: ipmi sensor thresholds |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:56:19 -0700 |
> So it seems that since the fan speed sensor is the only one with an
> undefined upper critical threshold, you have to treat this sensor as a
> special case.
I don't think this needs to be handled by a special case. The threshold
checking algorithm should be able to work around those values that
aren't defined. My pseudo-code thinking is along the lines of:
if (reading > nominal)
{
if (non-critical is defined && reading < non-critical)
ouptut warning and return
if (non-critical and critical is defined
&& reading > critical
&& reading < non-critical)
output critical and return
else if (non-critical undefined
&& critical defined
&& reading < critical)
output warning or alert or whatever;
/* similar for non-recoverable and sensor min/max, but probably
deeper and more complicated */
if (nothing is defined except for nominal min/max)
output unspecified fault
}
The above is just to illustrate my thinking on this, hopefully it makes
sense. Ab, Ian, is this logically how you're looking at things?
Al
--
Albert Chu
address@hidden
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Goldstone <address@hidden>
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2004 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Re: ipmi sensor thresholds
> On Thursday 12 August 2004 05:14 pm, Anand Babu wrote:
> > So the fields we need to look at are
> > Lower non-recoverable threshold: 0.00 RPM
> > Upper non-recoverable threshold: 0.00 RPM
> > Lower Critical threshold: 2100.00 RPM
> > Upper Critical threshold: 0.00 RPM
> > Lower non-critical threshold: 0.00 RPM
> > Upper non-critical threshold: 0.00 RPM
> > Sensor reading: 2680.00 RPM
> >
> > FAN sensor has no [Non-critical] [Non-recoverable] states.
> > Possible states are [OK] [Critical] [Unspecified fault].
> >
> > ONLY POSSIBLE RULE IS IN THE ABOVE CASE IS:
> > if (Sensor reading <= Lower Critical threshold "2100.00 RPM")
> > [Critical]
> > else
> > [OK]
> >
> > CALCULATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE:
> > Because "Sensor reading" (2680.00 RPM) is above "Lower Critical
> > threshold" (2100.00 RPM), State is [OK].
>
> So it seems that since the fan speed sensor is the only one with an
> undefined
> upper critical threshold, you have to treat this sensor as a
> special case.
> For all other sensors:
>
> if (Sensor reading <= Lower critical threshold) || (Sensor reading
> => Upper
> critical threshold)
> [Critical]
> else
> [OK]
>
> It seems silly to me for you to have to treat this one sensor as a
> special
> case in your code. It would be better if we could just get Intel
> to put a
> value for the upper critical threshold. In one sense, I understand
> their
> point that there is really no concern about a fan running too fast.
> But in
> reality, there has got to be some maximum physical RPM limit
> associated with
> the fan. If they would just use that as the upper critical
> threshold, then
> you would not need a special case for sensor #33.
>
> -Robin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipmi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel
>
Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Re: ipmi sensor thresholds, Albert Chu, 2004/08/18
Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Re: ipmi sensor thresholds, Albert Chu, 2004/08/18
Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Re: ipmi sensor thresholds,
Albert Chu <=
Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Re: ipmi sensor thresholds, Albert Chu, 2004/08/18