Michael DeHaan wrote:
Robert Lazzurs wrote:
> Thinking about this in terms of what is 'really' there...
>
> The power control interface is just an entry of what address to
> connect to for controlling the power for a system so it should not be
> in there and I don't think we should be taking DHCP information from
> there, this seems 'unclean'.
>
> However the DRAC and iLO cards are network interfaces on the systems
> from a hardware point of view so either these should be treated as
> systems them selfs or as network interfaces of the parent system. Now
> this is what I am doing at the moment because I figured in the future
> cobbler could host 'images' for upgrading devices like these, switches
> or routers lets say. This makes a lot of sense to me and fits in the
> current model, what do other people think?
>
Cobbler can host images for upgrades, in fact, and already does in some
ways -- HP and Dell (server) stuff is Linux kernel+initrd, for
instance. Very nice.
I think I kind of like the idea of treating them as systems, as they
really do run an independent OS. The question is the workflow to
configure that, is it weird and/or kludgy?
Actually, the way I'm thinking of it now would be to have a second system object
(sub-systems?), which would store your management info, and then link your main system to
that. This would be a 1 to 1 relationship, that way if you rebuilt a system onto a blade
(as noted below, this is a gotcha), you just reassign the sub-system object to something
else that needs management, put it in reserve, or just delete it.
In a blade environment, probably not.. the management blade is
another
system, right? Seems fair. You'd just want a way to say who the
controller was.
Seems fair.
--Michael
_______________________________________________
cobbler-devel mailing list
cobbler-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler-devel
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.