<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">>Rich Sudlow wrote:<br>
>> In the past we've used cyclades console servers for serial<br>
>> interfaces into our cluster nodes.<br>
>> <br>
>> We're replacing 360 nodes which couldn't do SOL with 360<br>
>> which could.<br>
>> <br>
>> Now that we can do SOL is that a better to use that instead of the <br>
>> Cyclades?<br>
>> <br>
>> Thoughts?<br>
><br>
>Every now and then IPMI gets wedged. We have seen it on all IPMI <br>
>stacks. When IPMI gets wedged, SOL stops working.<br>
><br>
>I recommend redundant administrative pathways ... make sure you can get <br>
>to and control the machine in the event of a problem. Some pathways may <br>
>not be as cost effective at scale than others.<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">I suggest that if you are already comfortable with Cyclades Terminal servers and already have them configured plus all the cables are already there, then why not continue to use them.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">I guess you already use the feature where they can write the console logs to a NFS mounted filesystem?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Redundant pathways are always a bonus. However here you might have problems in having effectively 2 simulatenous serial consoles.<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Daniel</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>