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?

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
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> 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:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Internet: www.itwm.fraunhofer.de
>


-- 
Albert Chu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
925-422-5311
Computer Scientist
High Performance Systems Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory



_______________________________________________
Freeipmi-devel mailing list
Freeipmi-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel

Reply via email to