[SunRescue] Re: SS2 running headless

[Ken Hansen]

>From what you say, they had consoles, but not dedicated consoles. The
original poster was talking about a machine with no user I/O, just ethernet
access. That is nice, but acces to the machine over another port (serial
console, dedicated tube/keys/mouse, or other) is, at the least, *suggested*
isn't it?

Every machine doesn't need a dedicated console, I am 100% with everyone on
that, but a console connected to a KVM, a serial console connected to a
smart serial switch, or other is a reasonable minimum.

Bottom line, you more options to reset a server than the power switch...

Right?

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [SunRescue] Re: SS2 running headless


> On February 11, paul at anastrophe.com wrote:
> > > A few things...
> > >
> > > 1) Runnig the machine with *no* console is not a *great*
> > >    idea, but it should be OK.
> >
> > why do you say that? (currently running 18 servers headless and without
> > console port connected, for the last two years, and would never even
> > consider running the desktop on them since it's such a security
sphincter)
>
>   I second this, Ken.  In the server and ISP industries, running
> machines with no console is the norm.  At Digex, for example (before
> the place went down the tubes, that is) picture hundreds of SS2 and
> SS5 systems on shelves in racks...in the middle of the computer room,
> a table and chair with a couple of VT320s with *very* long MMJ cables.
>
>   It's a very workable situation and has never given me any grief.
>
>
>           -Dave McGuire
> _______________________________________________
> Rescue maillist  -  Rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue