Howdy everyone, I wanted to get people's inputs on this.
The hostranged support in FreeIPMI has allowed parallel communication to multiple remote hosts: ipmi-sensors -h node[0-4] -u XXX -p XXX The problem is that this will only work in homogeneous environments where everything is identical. Under most scenarios, this is a perfectly acceptable. I think it is reasonable for users to configure identical usernames/passwords/etc. on those machines they want to communicate with in parallel. However, there is a big issue when vendor motherboards are not IPMI compliant and a user needs to specify one of the workarounds listed in the manpage. This is something out of a user's control. Another question is, do we need heterogenous support for hostrange options? For some tools, it doesn't seem to make sense. For example, ipmi-sensors will be outputting different sensors from different motherboards. However, ipmipower just outputs power on vs. off, so it is more agnostic to the motherboard it communicates with. It may also be difficult to continually remember which machines need what workarounds or have alternate configurations. My initial thought on how to deal with this (this is high level thought, not much detail yet) is to support a config file /etc/freeipmi.conf where users could configure specific nodes to use different options to different hosts. For example, it could say: workaround endianseq nodes[0-4] workaround intel20 nodes[5-8] The above would indicate default values for the specified nodes when a user runs ipmi-sensors, ipmipower, etc. This config file would presumably replace ipmipower.conf and ipmiconsole.conf and provide tool specific options as well. i.e. ipmiconsole_dont_steal true nodes[0-8] What are people's thoughts? Al -- 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