Me too! It's a sloppy network we have, alright. We have 1800 cobalt 
servers, which means each rack has to have 2 switches, and each row of 
racks have a router at the end for all the switches, just for the 
network cabling. To do all of those to have serial as well would have a 
cost associated with it I don't think management wants to spring for. Oh 
well :)

I do feel a bit for the original patcher of this thread, who thought it 
be nice to offer his diffs, told to do something more "proper" then shot 
down because it's bloat. Not complaining or putting blame on anyone, it 
just puts people off contributing, I know it did for me.

Take care,

Lundy


matthew green wrote:
>    
>    Frankly, if you don't have console's on your servers, then they can't
>    be all that important and then it just doesn't matter when you turn
>    them off.
>    
>    Sysadmins build machinerooms with consoles, console cables, and 
>    console servers.  I have a machineroom with close to 200 machines
>    in it, and I have one monitor.  I can get to any console on those
>    machines from anywhere, even across the planet.
>    
>    If you want to build a hacked up network, then that's up to you. But
>    then you can hack up your kernel with whatever code you want too. But
>    don't make everyone else have to have that code there just because
>    you like to run a sloppy network.
> 
> 
> 
> i wish i had the hardware to do this.  send me a few supported
> multiport serial cards?  i just don't have the supported hardware
> to have all my machines with serial console connected at the
> same time, and this feature would be useful for the couple that
> do not have soft power (ie, halt -p doesn't work.)
> 
> 
> .mrg.
> 
> 

-- 
Jorgen Lundman       | <lundman@lundman.net>
Unix Administrator   | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work)
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo    | +81 (0)90-5578-8500          (cell)
Japan                | +81 (0)3 -3375-1767          (home)