Hey Werner, On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 10:15 -0700, Albert Chu wrote: > Hi Werner, > > On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 03:51 -0700, Werner Fischer wrote: > > Hi Al, > > (sorry for sending it twice, I sent my first email in error only to you, > > not the list) > > > > I've been on vacation for some weeks and now back again. > > > > Benjamin meant with "not detected" that FreeIPMI returns a monitoring > > status of "N/A" for those sensors (not "Nominal"). Unfortunately we > > missed to send the output of "ipmimonitoring --legacy-output > > --interpret-oem-data --quiet-cache --sdr-cache-recreate" (which is used > > by our Nagios plugin): > > > > Record ID | Sensor Name | Sensor Group | Monitoring Status | Sensor Units | > > Sensor Reading [...] > > 47 | SMI Timeout | OEM Reserved | N/A | N/A | 'OK' > > [...] > > 55 | P1 VRD Hot | Temperature | N/A | N/A | 'OK' > > 56 | P2 VRD Hot | Temperature | N/A | N/A | 'OK' > > [...] > > 59 | IOH Therm Trip | Temperature | N/A | N/A | 'OK' > > > > Would it be possible for you to include information about those four > > sensors to future versions of FreeIPMI, so that it reports a monitoring > > status of "Nominal" when the sensor reading is 'OK' as above? > > Shouldn't be a problem. B/c the SMI Timeout one is an OEM sensor, I > would need information from Intel on that one.
Actually, I would need info on Intel for one other sensor, #59. The discrete states for that sensor are "asserted" and "deasserted". Naturally, these states are completely ambiguous. I can go ahead and add support into FreeIPMI for it, but the defaults I will have to completely guess on. Users might need to adjust the config file for their environment later on. [1] The other two temp sensors are "limit exceeded" vs "limit not exceeded", so they are more clear. Al [1] - Unfortunately, this can't be avoid. One vendor's "asserted" could mean critical, while another vendor's "asserted" could be nominal. > The other three I can figure out from the previous e-mail. Let me see > what I can get for you to try out. > > Al > > > In case you would need additional information from Intel about those > > sensors, just let me know. > > > > Best regards and have a nice weekend, > > thank you, > > Werner > > > > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 10:06 -0800, Albert Chu wrote: > > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > > > What do you mean by "not detected"? It appears everything is fine by > > > the information you list below. > > > > > > Do you mean these sensors are not reporting actual temperatures? While > > > these are indeed temperature sensors (identified by the motherboard as > > > such), they do not appear to be sensors that report a temperature > > > reading. They instead report an event bitmask. The key is the > > > "event/Readin Type Code" field of each sensor. > > > > > > Al > > > > > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 23:55 -0800, Benjamin Bayer wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > we have a Intel SR1625 wehre some Sensors not detected with FreeIPMI > > > > Version 1.0.2.beta3. > > > > > > > > Thank You. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Benjamin Bayer > > -- 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
