Debating between python, perl, and C.


From:   Egan Ford <[email protected]>
To:     xCAT Users Mailing list <[email protected]>
Date:   07/01/2013 02:44 PM
Subject:        Re: [xcat-user] conserver replacement



What are you going to write it in?

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Jarrod Johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm contemplating a conserver replacement.  There is sufficient
> functionality I want to add and conserver is a tad inconvenient.
>
> conman wasn't appreciably closer than conserer toward the goals I had in
> mind.
>
> So I'm considering making a new one.  The differences would be:
> -IPv6 support
> -Precise SSL client certficate authentication for SSL socket client
> operation
> -HTTP access (i.e. being an external FastCGI handler, interoperable
directly
> with shellinabox's javascript code).
> -Baked in ipmi support in the same manner than conserver could do telnet
> (i.e. fewer processes)
>  -contemplating going a bit further by having non-console  IPMI commands
> over the sessions and helping do some IPMI secret management and rotation
to
> implement IPMI more securely than is typical).
> -SSL target support (e.g. smoother/possible consoles for KVM/ESXi guests,
> where the target acts like a client rather than a server)
> -Smoother configuration reload
> -Exception-only logging (i.e. a logging option to request the console be
> monitored for events like firmware errors or kernel oops and only log
those
> sorts of events)
> -Improved logging performance and function.  Reduce IO cost per console
> whilst adding more precise timing information (eschews plain text logs,
but
> would provide tooling to extract plain text logs optionally stripping
> control codes alongside potentially a more accurate replaycons)
>
> I fully anticipate full logging whilst etiher a FastCGI or SSL socket
client
> is connected.  It would be site preference as to whether full logging,
> exception-only logging, or no logging is performed while no clients are
> connected to a given console, but hopefully the reduced IO cost and more
> efficient IPMI console support renders it a less costly feature to
enact..
>
> For authentication, aside from SSL client certs, would support
user/password
> auth with admin having the option to addiotnally require TOTP  (TOTP
support
> would have the secret encrypted using  user password as key).  The TOTP
> algorithm would be interoperable with the Google Authenticator mobile
app.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> xCAT-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
xCAT-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user

<<inline: graycol.gif>>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
xCAT-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user

Reply via email to