On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:17:18AM -0800, David A. Ranch wrote: > > >>>constantly updating their "2.10 Beta" code for over a year without > >>>changing the revision number. The only way to tell that there is a > >>>newer version is the date of the file itself. I used to be using > >>>09/07/06 but I've been recently using 12/27/06 and I understand there is > >>>now a 02/09/07 version. No versions really give an errata sheet to say > >>>what's changed. > >> > > > >>Would it make sense to complain to SuperMicro? > > > I recently escalate this issue both for IPMI and their BIOS files. > According to them, the files between these dates should be identical as > the newer dates are only due to adding additional motherboard support > and the way they do releases, all the files are replaced. Yet I bet if > I ran an MD5/SHA1SUM between these different dated files, they would be > different. I'm going to try it and see what happens but it seems that > Supermicro isn't as open to errata reporting as I would like. The other > thing Supermicro said was that they only issue errata documentation once > the firmware is released (not beta) but I took exception to this because > the 2.10Beta has been in "beta" for well over 12 months without any > release. That and it's the only version with full IPMI2.0 support.
I had another look at their H8SSL.zip files, both in the main tree and in 2.10_Beta, and their contents look the same (2.4 version). Bad. I have also been told (but was unable to confirm) that H8SSL-i2 boards (for Opteron 12xx) would require another model of BMC :( which probably means end-of-development for older versions(?). > Anyway, as a test, you might try using Supermicro's IPMI tools to see if > you see the same level of fallout compared to IPMITool: > ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/CDR-0010_2.03_for_IPMI_Server_Managment/Rev2.10_Beta/IPMI_Solution/Linux/Administrator/CLI I'm confused: does this one allow to access the local BMC, or is it limited to remote access? the text files next to the binary suggest that I have to give an IP (but I also know that it's impossible by design to access the local card via network from within) > I think the Supermicro solution is more tolerant of IPMI packet > corruption, loss, etc. compared to IPMITool. In the future, I hope we > can get the ipmitool more tolerant as well. I'd certainly appreciate this! (in particular, error messages [currently asserts] and return codes could be a bit more detailed... no, I'm probably not the one to fix this, unfortunately, but I'm willing to test :-) Steffen -- Steffen Grunewald * MPI Grav.Phys.(AEI) * Am Mühlenberg 1, D-14476 Potsdam Cluster Admin * http://pandora.aei.mpg.de/merlin/ * http://www.aei.mpg.de/ * e-mail: steffen.grunewald(*)aei.mpg.de * +49-331-567-{fon:7233,fax:7298} No Word/PPT mails - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Ipmitool-devel mailing list Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
