[Freeipmi-devel] Re: [Freeipmi-users] bmc-autoconfig: drop for 0.5.0 release?

[Al Chu]

Hey Peter, everyone,

If you have a chance, do you think you could checkout the new bmc-
config.8 manpage, bmc-config.conf.5 manpage, and bmc-config --checkout
comments and let me know if anything would make it easier?  They're in
the head of CVS.  

./autogen.sh
./configure
make
man bmc-config/bmc-config.8
man bmc-config/bmc-config.conf.5
bmc-config/src/bmc-config --checkout > myout.out

If you'd rather have a tar.gz or rpm, just let me know, I can do that
too.

Al

On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 16:01 -0700, Peter Broadwell wrote:
> Al -
> 
> The sample man page looks much improved over the old stuff, thanks.
> 
> The "header comments" also seem like a step in the right direction.
> In addition to what you mention:
> 
>   # This section is for configuring blah blah blah.
>   # For most systems you want to configure blah blah blah.
> 
> a comment or two like:
> 
>   # blah blah blah lets you set the serial port parameters and
>   # must be changed in coordination with the bleh bleh bleh.
> 
> would aid in navigating/tying the IPMI space together...
> 
> ;;peter
> 
> 
> 
> Al Chu wrote:
> > Hey Peter,
> > 
> >> Perhaps what is needed is a wiki or some such where real world
> >> problem/solutions examples can accumulate?
> > 
> > For FreeIPMI 0.5.0, I've been adding a lot of additional information to
> > the FreeIPMI manpages.  For example:
> > 
> > ---
> > GENERAL USE
> >        Most users of bmc-config will want to:
> > 
> >        A)  Run  bmc-config  with --checkout to get a copy of the current
> > BMC configuration and store it in a file. The standard output
> >        can be redirected to a file or a file can be specified with the
> > --filename option.
> > 
> >        B) Edit the configuration file with an editor. See bmc-
> > config.conf(5) for information on what the fields in  the  configuration
> >        file mean.
> > 
> >        C) Commit the configuration back to the BMC using the --commit
> > option and specifying the configuration file with the --filename
> >        option.
> > 
> >        For users with large clusters or sets of nodes, you may wish to
> > use the same configuration file for all nodes. The one  problem
> >        with  this  is  that the IP address and MAC address will be
> > different on each node in your cluster and thus can't be configured
> >        through the same config file. The IP address and MAC address in
> > your config file may be overwritten on the command  line  using
> >        --key-pair option. The following example could be used in a
> > script to configure each node in a cluster with the same BMC config
> >        file. The script only needs to determine the correct IP address
> > and MAC address to use.
> > 
> >        # bmc-config --commit -k Lan_Conf:Ip_Address=$MY_IP -k
> > Lan_Conf:Mac_Address=$MY_MAC -f my_bmc.conf
> > ---
> > 
> > Hopefully text like that will get users going where-as it may have been
> > more confusing before.  I also have pointers to bmc-config.conf(5)
> > (whereas there wasn't a pointer before, so most would not have seen the
> > manpage).  There are also trouble-shooting sections for generic issues.
> > I don't currently have a bmc-config specific trouble-shooting section.
> > Do you think that would be useful?  What kind of stuff do you think
> > should be in it?
> > 
> > Another thought I've had is adding additional sectional "header
> > comments" into the sections bmc-config checkout.  So for example:
> > 
> > #
> > # Section LAN_Conf
> > #
> > # This section is for configuring blah blah blah.  For most
> > # systems you want to configure blah blah blah.
> > Section LAN_Conf
> >    ...
> > EndSection
> > 
> > So that might give the user additional help in setting up their system.
> > Do you think that would really help?
> > 
> >> Where can a user find out if their machine supports SOL, and what
> >> could they do with it if it did? (rhetorical question, but was real 
> >> for me once.)
> > 
> > Hmmm.  That's a far harder question.  Outside of a specific list, I'm
> > not really sure what could be done.  Some vendors in the past have said
> > they support IPMI when they don't. :-)
> > 
> > Al
> > 
> > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 15:24 -0700, Peter Broadwell wrote:
> >> This is understandable.
> >> Loosing the commented template is sad however.
> >>
> >> Perhaps what is needed is a wiki or some such where real world
> >> problem/solutions examples can accumulate?
> >>
> >> Where can a user find out if their machine supports SOL, and what
> >> could they do with it if it did?
> >> (rhetorical question, but was real for me once.)
> >>
> >> ;;peter
> >>
> >>
> >> Al Chu wrote:
> >>> I had begun working on a template to store in the docs directory, with
> >>> comments throughout the file to inform the user of what they should
> >>> configure on their own.
> >>>
> >>> However, with so many different BMCs and vendor implementations out
> >>> there, a substantial portion of the default template will fail for
> >>> different users and different hardware.  I think that will simply cause
> >>> confusion.  For example, a user may believe they have SOL configured
> >>> properly when their machine may not support SOL.
> >>>
> >>> I'm more inclined to let the user run --checkout on their own, since it
> >>> will allow the user to configure exactly what is available for their
> >>> machine.  It is the model that LLNL and most users of FreeIPMI (that
> >>> I've spoken to) follow.
> >>>
> >>> So for the time being, I've removed bmc-autoconfig.  If it can be
> >>> revamped to handle SOL, varying number of users, passwords, varying BMC
> >>> implementations, etc.  I think we can add it back in.
> >>>
> >>> Al
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 10:14 -0700, Al Chu wrote:
> >>>> I have been working with a user on a BMC config issue with their
> >>>> machine.  I'm now disinclined to support the committing of a default
> >>>> template.  
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Many different machines support different configuration options.
> >>>> Included in this are: ipmi 1.5 only options vs ipmi 2.0 options vs.
> >>>> optionally supported options vs. newer errata options vs. flat out
> >>>> unsupported options.  So do we support the full template (so most
> >>>> options will fail by default) or do we support a minimal template (most
> >>>> options aren't listed).
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Due to the IP address and MAC address being required for modification
> >>>> (and likely subnet + gateway too), at minimum, the user must edit the
> >>>> template anyways, we cannot create a default template that will work
> >>>> without modification.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the better idea is to store a template in the docs location and
> >>>> mention it in the bmc-config manpage.  I have also written into the bmc-
> >>>> config manpage some general use instructions, so they know they should
> >>>> run --checkout to create a config template first.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> Al
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 11:18 -0700, Anand Babu Periasamy wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Al,
> >>>>> I am thinking, if we produce $prefix/etc/freeipmi/bmc-config.conf with
> >>>>> fully documented options and default values, bmc-autoconfig's goal can
> >>>>> be achieved. Additionally it can be used for automation too.
> >>>>> bmc-config will use this config file if none is specified through the
> >>>>> command line argument. Then we can get rid of bmc-autoconfig. What do
> >>>>> you think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Al Chu writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I just thought of this.  We could also distribute a common template 
> >>>>>> file
> >>>>>> as part of FreeIPMI and install it in the docs dir?  I guess my semi-
> >>>>>> argument against this is the fact that we've (practically) already
> >>>>>> distributed a template file with the bmc-config.conf(5) manpage.  So
> >>>>>> would there be a need?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What are people's thoughts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Al
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 11:01 -0700, Peter Broadwell wrote:
> >>>>>>> I have need to configure many machines at the same time and if the 
> >>>>>>> templateing
> >>>>>>> file was documented this tool might become the one of choice for such 
> >>>>>>> uses.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ;;peter
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anand Babu Periasamy wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Al,
> >>>>>>>> * It is still maintained.
> >>>>>>>> * BMC-Autoconfig is not a GUI wizard for bmc-config. It is supposed 
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>  ask minimum questions from the user and automatically configure the
> >>>>>>>>  BMC with known defaults. It is intended for users without any
> >>>>>>>>  knowledge of IPMI to quickly get a basic working setup.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * It does enable LAN and configure NULL, admin, operator and ipmiuser
> >>>>>>>>  accounts. See the template file, you will get an idea what all it
> >>>>>>>>  configures.
> >>>>>>>> If you have suggestions to improve, let us know?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Albert Chu writes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of dropping this from FreeIPMI:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A) It doesn't seem to be maintained by the original authors.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> B) It apparenly only configures 3 fields of the BMC.  No users, lan
> >>>>>>>>> enabling, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't really see the use anymore.  Any comments?  Anyone out there
> >>>>>>>>> using
> >>>>>>>>> this?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Al
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>> Albert Chu
> >>>>>> address@hidden
> >>>>>> 925-422-5311
> >>>>>> Computer Scientist
> >>>>>> High Performance Systems Division
> >>>>>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
-- 
Albert Chu
address@hidden
925-422-5311
Computer Scientist
High Performance Systems Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory