Hi all, I second what was said: there is no point to try to rewrite what is already done by someone. I also would like to go further in the discussion: what do we have IMPI for? is it for the implementation of a pseudo fault tolerance (FT) mechanism (we detect that a failure failed, we assume we have a checkpoint of the running apps, we restart the node w/ IPMI, and then we restart the node)? or is it for management purpose (i know the node is down, i want to put it be online in order to check the logs and the system)?
I think the ultimate goal will change deeply what needs to be done. In fact i think that if we do not have such an ultimate goal, the GSoC project will never be really used by the OSCAR community. And it is also clear that if you place the IPMI in the context of such a goal, a lot has to be done (but i think it will be a very interesting project). For example: - if we decide to implement some kind of FT mechanism, we need to design a global architecture to deal with any kind of failures (even if everything won't need to be done in that project). We also have to see how that will interact with HA-OSCAR, - if we decide to focus only on the management aspect, we will have to come up with an idea of what means management in OSCAR (we actually spoke about that during the OSCAR meeting few weeks ago, i think we have some ideas on the topic). The current OSCAR architecture is very naive to deal with the management issues. Personally i like the management issues and if someone is selected to work on that i will be happy to participate in the mentoring effort. And according to me, all IPMI project will be a difficult but interesting task because IMPI by itself is not interesting; the way we are using IPMI is interesting. My 2 cents, Selon Paul Greidanus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > abshnasko wrote: > > Hi, I am a student interested in undertaking your IPMI feature > > implementation. I have done my research on this topic and I have experience > > with OSCAR, but before I begin the proposal I have a question: > > > > Am I allowed to use other freely available code or software products to > > accomplish this project? For example, a good GNU IPMI framework called > > FreeIPMI is available, and my current plan is to base my implementation off > > of their framework. Is this allowed, or does my final product need to be > > 100% original? Let me know. > > Hi Travis, > > Every piece of Oscar is imported from other projects, with OSCAR being > the glue to put them together. In light of this statement, I'm pretty > sure that using ipmitool, or freeimpi would be a very good place to > work. There is enough other work involved with getting it integrated > "properly" into OSCAR, that rewriting the ipmi tool would be a waste of > time. For example, adding the MAC addresses for the IMPI cards into the > oscar database, and setting up username/password pairs for them all. > > However, making it compartmentalized enough so that someone can choose > between impitool and freeimpi would be useful. > > One thing that isn't in the SoC description, is possibly setting up > watchdog timers on the BMC/IPMI cards if they are available.. > > Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Oscar-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
