Hey Rob, That's interesting. You updated from ELOM to ILOM, and new sensors showed up? If that's the case, there could be a bug in the firmware. In the case where a sensor is not present, the sensor reading should report back that the sensor is unavailable. ipmimonitoring would subsequently not read/interpret that sensor. You may wish to ping Sun on this (or maybe someone on the mailing list will respond :-)
Al On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 21:43 +0100, Rob O'Connor wrote: > Many thanks for your help! I was checking out sensor configs and > editing and getting nowhere, and really thinking I must be missing > something obvious - at least I'm not going totally mad! > This particular case with the X4150 might be slightly unusual in the > service processor was upgraded from an ELOM to an ILOM - and I'm not > quite sure what power supply sensors were previously available before > the update or whether the ELOM->ILOM update introduced some kind of > edge case where it ended up with 2 sets of sensors with conflicting > assertion. I've also got a bunch of X4100s which just have these in > the Power Supply group (a subset of those found on the X4150s): > > 29 | PS0/VINOK | Power Supply | Warning | N/A | 'State Asserted' > 30 | PS0/PWROK | Power Supply | Warning | N/A | 'State Asserted' > 43 | PS1/VINOK | Power Supply | Warning | N/A | 'State Asserted' > 44 | PS1/PWROK | Power Supply | Warning | N/A | 'State Asserted' > and this was my original problem - they throw a Warning for a 'State > Asserted'. I'd hacked it and swapped the assertion in the sensor > config file, and copied the new sensor config around and then realised > the X4150s had the additional sensors which didn't quite fit. > So I suppose my real problem is with the 4 sensors above, and ideally > I'd love to fix the status on them. > > Rob. > > Al Chu wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > Argh! I was afraid some vendor would do something like this eventually. > > Having the same "style" sensors report states/events in non-consistent > > manners. I will have to think of a way to deal with this in the future. > > As for your question ... > > > > > > > I've been trying to figure if I can get ipmimonitoring to simply not > > > report some sensors (e.g the PS*/*_FAULT) ones above - but can't > > > figure how to do this. Is it possible? > > > > > > > There is a --groups and --sensors option for ipmimonitoring where you > > can specifically list which sensors/groups you want to see. You can > > configure the default list of groups into the freeipmi.conf file to make > > it default to a certain output if that makes things easier for you [1]. > > > > Unfortunately, these are "show me this stuff" options, not "exclude this > > stuff" options. So you'll have to list all the groups/sensors you want. > > > > Longer term (it's now on my TODO), it might be good if I create a > > "--exclude-groups" and "--exclude-sensors" options, that can eliminate > > sensors to list. > > > > Hope that answers your question. And thanks for e-mailing about this. > > Now I see a new good option I should put into ipmi-sensors and > > ipmimonitoring. > > > > Al > > > > [1] There's a typo in the freeipmi.conf file that'll be fixed soon. You > > separate groups by spaces, not commas. > > > > On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:03 -0700, ocoro02 wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks - I'm using FreeIPMI 0.7.8 on Solaris 10 on some Sun X4150 > > > servers - > > > these have had their Eloms updated to be Iloms running (from memory) > > > 2.0.2.10 of the Ilom firmware. > > > > > > With ipmimonitoring for the Power_Supply group I see: > > > > > > # ipmimonitoring | grep "Power Supply" > > > 29 | PS0/VINOK | Power Supply | Warning | N/A | 'State Asserted' > > > 30 | PS0/PWROK | Power Supply | Warning | N/A | 'State Asserted' > > > 31 | PS0/CUR_FAULT | Power Supply | Nominal | N/A | 'State Deasserted' > > > 32 | PS0/VOLT_FAULT | Power Supply | Nominal | N/A | 'State Deasserted' > > > 33 | PS0/FAN_FAULT | Power Supply | Nominal | N/A | 'State Deasserted' > > > 34 | PS0/TEMP_FAULT | Power Supply | Nominal | N/A | 'State Deasserted' > > > 43 | PS1/VINOK | Power Supply | Warning | N/A | 'State Asserted' > > > 44 | PS1/PWROK | Power Supply | Warning | N/A | 'State Asserted' > > > 45 | PS1/CUR_FAULT | Power Supply | Nominal | N/A | 'State Deasserted' > > > 46 | PS1/VOLT_FAULT | Power Supply | Nominal | N/A | 'State Deasserted' > > > 47 | PS1/FAN_FAULT | Power Supply | Nominal | N/A | 'State Deasserted' > > > 48 | PS1/TEMP_FAULT | Power Supply | Nominal | N/A | 'State Deasserted' > > > > > > You see the problem? The '*OK' sensors are asserted, but in Warning > > > state. > > > Unfortunately I can't flip assertion in ipmi_monitoring_sensors.conf - i.e > > > like this: > > > > > > IPMI_Power_Supply_State_Deasserted Critical > > > IPMI_Power_Supply_State_Asserted Nominal > > > > > > because the '*_FAULT' sensors will then be in Critical. > > > > > > I've been trying to figure if I can get ipmimonitoring to simply not > > > report > > > some sensors (e.g the PS*/*_FAULT) ones above - but can't figure how to do > > > this. Is it possible? > > > > -- Albert Chu [email protected] Computer Scientist High Performance Systems Division Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory _______________________________________________ Freeipmi-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-users
