Remote Console

On 10/16/05, Grant Peel <gpeelthenetnow.com> wrote:
> Thanks Andrew,
>
> So If I understand your reply, a setup like this should
always give me
> access to any of the servers by SSHing to one server,
then CUing to get to
> the console of the 'broken' one, regardless of its
state (assuming the disks
> are OK, and boot stage 1 worked):
>
> (WAN Shown, LAN Same, using seperate nics on Servers
and Switch)
>
>
>                                   ISP's router
>                                         |
>                                     My Switch
>
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> |                  |                    |              
    |
> |
> Serv1            Serv2                Serv3            
  Serv4
> Serv5
>
> Serial1--------->Serial2
>                  Serial1------------->Serial2
>                                      
Serial1------------>Serial2
>                                                        
  Serial1---------->Serial2
>
> Can more than 1 console access type be specified in
loader.conf ?
>     i.e.
>         console='serialconsole'
>         console='videoconsole'
>
> When using 'serial console, does anything have to be
specified to use serial
> 2?
>
> What is the default local console, how is it specified?
>     i.e. the one you use when you plug a keyboard and
monitor directly into
> the machine?
>
> Would I need to install any other software other than
the client (CU)?
>
> -GRant
>

I haven't configured comconsoles myself, I just happen
to work at a place where they are used heavily (Sun
ALOM mostly, but built-in LOMs and FreeBSD software
comsonsoles also). Please consult the Handbook and
google, I'm sure there's nothing difficult to it.

I would not support your chaining idea, though. It's
the only one that requires $0.00 budget, but COM
hubs are cheap today. If you rent rackspace, I'm
sure your colocation provider can offer you some
kind of non-expensive remote management. If
rackspace is free, consider buying some hardware
(like a COM hub).

The matter is, that you'll want 9600 bps speeds
for max compatibility. While it is usable for
occasional failure recovery, chaining it would
make it lag too much.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-que
stions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-questions-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 16:44 +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
> I would not support your chaining idea, though.[...]
> 
> The matter is, that you'll want 9600 bps speeds
> for max compatibility. While it is usable for
> occasional failure recovery, chaining it would
> make it lag too much.

Well, chaining is such a strong word. How about
"connecting the serial
ports in a ring"? The thing is that he only jumps from
one box to the
other, not through more/all of them. 

I actually prefer this solution over a portmaster, unless it
supports
SSH. I would hate to telnet with a clear-text password
across the
Internet. SSH'ing into a live system, and them calling upon
the other
system via serial port seems like a good solution to me.

Cheers,
Frank