freeipmi-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Freeipmi-devel] setting thresholds


From: Al Chu
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] setting thresholds
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:08:38 -0800

On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 07:41 -0800, Albert Chu wrote:
> Hey Gregor,
> 
> > Btw, to strengthen the case against the command line interface: There
> > are different event triggers / event classes. For example, the event
> > trigger 02h relates to the "discrete"-event class which describes one of
> > the events "Transition to Idle / Active / Busy". Or the event trigger
> > 03h. It's a "digital discrete"-event class and describes the events
> > "State Asserted / Deasserted".
> 
> I'm glad you brought that up.  As I was looking through the spec, I was
> wondering how deep I wanted to support the configuration.  There are some
> "scary areas" in IPMI that I fear configuring b/c so many vendors
> implement IPMI poorly.  When a vendor configures usernames/passwords
> incorrectly, and bmc-config subsequently messes something up, well, its
> only a username and password issue.  in-band IPMI can still work.
> 
> Potentially enabling/disabling sensor scanning may make things really bad
> on a system.  Sort of like my initial resisitance to add boot-parameter
> configuration to bmc-config.
> 
> I'm thinking perhaps I will just leave these "scary areas" commented out
> in the config after you do a checkout.  That way, if you really know what
> you're doing, you are welcome to uncomment and commit away.  It's sort of
> like the SOL port field in the bmc-config.  That's a scary config that I
> don't want people to write to the BMC by default.
> 
> What do you think?

Thinking about this a bit more, I suppose it begs the question, why
don't I just leave all fields uncommented until the user wants to
configure them. 

Maybe its enough to say that bmc-config is "generic", but sensors-config
is "advanced", so you better know what you're doing if you're going to
be using "sensors-config"???

Al

> Al
> 
> > Hey,
> >
> > I would prefer the direct integration into 'ipmi-sensors'. A tool called
> > 'ipmi-sensors-config' would be my second choise, if you prefer to let
> > ipmi-sensors a read-only tool.
> >
> > Btw, to strengthen the case against the command line interface: There
> > are different event triggers / event classes. For example, the event
> > trigger 02h relates to the "discrete"-event class which describes one of
> > the events "Transition to Idle / Active / Busy". Or the event trigger
> > 03h. It's a "digital discrete"-event class and describes the events
> > "State Asserted / Deasserted".
> > So in order to the many command line arguments which would be required
> > by a command line implementation, the tool would be unclear.
> >
> > Regards,
> >  -Gregor
> >
> > Al Chu wrote:
> >> As I look through the IPMI spec, I realize now that setting thresholds
> >> has nothing to do w/ the SDR.  It seems to be a configurable field
> >> independent of the SDR.  Event enabling/disabling of the sensor also
> >> seems to be independent of the SDR.
> >>
> >> So perhaps, this should not be 'ipmi-sdr' or 'sdr-config' but rather
> >> something else.  "ipmi-sensor-config"??  Seems sort of long.  Any better
> >> ideas for a tool name?  Or should we just add a --checkout/--commit/--
> >> diff into 'ipmi-sensors'?  The later is an idea I don't like.
> >>
> >> Al
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 10:39 -0800, Al Chu wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey Gregor,
> >>>
> >>> Cool.  I've added it to the TODO.  I don't have a timeline for 0.6.0 at
> >>> the moment.  When I have something more concrete, I'll give you a ping
> >>> for some comments.
> >>>
> >>> Al
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 19:31 +0100, Gregor Dschung wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hey Al,
> >>>>
> >>>> nice news :)
> >>>>
> >>>> I would prefer a pef-config like interface. The feature to save the
> >>>> whole
> >>>> config in a file is THE argument to use FreeIPMI.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>  -Gregor
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hey Gregor,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At the moment there isn't a tool to do this.  An 'ipmi-sdr' tool has
> >>>>> been on the todo for years.  I'm slating this tool to be in FreeIPMI
> >>>>> 0.6.0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I haven't thought of an interface that would be suitable for
> >>>>> threshold
> >>>>> configuration.  Would a pef-config/bmc-config like interface be best?
> >>>>> Or a command line interface like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --set-upper-threshold=80
> >>>>> --set-lower-threshold=40
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Al
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 18:36 +0100, Gregor Dschung wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm missing the option to set the thresholds of sensors.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It would be nice to have a utility like pef-config or bmc-config,
> >>>>>> which
> >>>>>> allows me to write out the current configuration and to commit a
> >>>>>> template file.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or have I overlooked something?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>> Gregor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Albert Chu
> >>>>> address@hidden
> >>>>> 925-422-5311
> >>>>> Computer Scientist
> >>>>> High Performance Systems Division
> >>>>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gregor Dschung
> > System Life Guard, HiWi
> >
> > Fraunhofer-Institut für Techno-
> > und Wirtschaftsmathematik ITWM
> > Fraunhofer-Platz 1
> > D-67663 Kaiserslautern
> >
> > E-Mail:   address@hidden
> > Internet: www.itwm.fraunhofer.de
> >
> 
> 
-- 
Albert Chu
address@hidden
925-422-5311
Computer Scientist
High Performance Systems Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]