From owner-freebsd-proliant@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 11 04:37:20 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A1E106566B for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:37:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from edwin@mavetju.org) Received: from mail5out.barnet.com.au (mail5.barnet.com.au [202.83.178.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADF28FC17 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:37:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from edwin@mavetju.org) Received: by mail5out.barnet.com.au (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 22D5F2218AB1; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:17:46 +1100 (EST) X-Viruscan-Id: <47D607EA00018029E43DA2@BarNet> Received: from mail5auth.barnet.com.au (mail5.barnet.com.au [202.83.178.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail5auth.barnet.com.au", Issuer "*.barnet.com.au" (verified OK)) by mail5.barnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6F721B1E2F for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:17:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from k7.mavetju (k7.mavetju.org [10.251.1.18]) by mail5auth.barnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949DE2218A99 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:17:45 +1100 (EST) Received: by k7.mavetju (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 590121A3; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:17:45 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:17:45 +1100 From: Edwin Groothuis To: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080311041745.GB2948@k7.mavetju> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: SSH towards ILO X-BeenThere: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion of FreeBSD on HP ProLiant server platforms." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:37:20 -0000 Since day one I had interesting behaviour with SSH towards the ILO interface: [~] root@tim>ssh -2 admin@ilo-janus.int.barnet.com.au admin@ilo-janus.int.barnet.com.au's password: Received disconnect from 10.252.10.2: 11: Authentication failed and then: [~] root@tim>ssh -2 admin@ilo-janus.int.barnet.com.au ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host but when doing it from a different machine it works. And entering the wrong password gives the same kind of behaviour: [~] root@janus>ssh -2 admin@ilo-grass.int.barnet.com.au admin@ilo-grass.int.barnet.com.au's password: Permission denied, please try again. admin@ilo-grass.int.barnet.com.au's password: Permission denied, please try again. admin@ilo-grass.int.barnet.com.au's password: Permission denied, please try again. [~] root@janus>ssh -2 admin@ilo-grass.int.barnet.com.au ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host [~] root@janus>telnet ilo-grass.int.barnet.com.au 22 Trying 10.252.10.16... Connected to ilo-grass.int.barnet.com.au. Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host. Has somebody a method of connecting to the ILO via SSH in such a way that it doesn't play these silly tricks? Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ From owner-freebsd-proliant@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 14 21:49:21 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3771065673 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:49:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johan@stromnet.se) Received: from core.stromnet.se (core.stromnet.se [83.218.84.131]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6897A8FC1D for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:49:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johan@stromnet.se) Received: from localhost (core.stromnet.se [83.218.84.131]) by core.stromnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F5ED46416 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:30:33 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stromnet.se Received: from core.stromnet.se ([83.218.84.131]) by localhost (core.stromnet.se [83.218.84.135]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6W76EXynaaSi for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:30:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from johan-mp.stromnet.se (90-224-172-102-no129.tbcn.telia.com [90.224.172.102]) by core.stromnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A29D4640F for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:30:28 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?= To: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:30:56 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Subject: Smartarray P400i and raid5? X-BeenThere: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion of FreeBSD on HP ProLiant server platforms." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:49:21 -0000 Hello list! I'm about to get myself a DL360 G5 box with a SmartArray P400i 256Mb =20 BBWC. I found this thread in the archive: = http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-proliant/2007-August/000297.htm= l =46rom the thread one person claims raid5 mode is not very good without = =20 BBWC, but the original poster didn't seem to know if he had BBWC or =20 not, and the thread died, I'd like to know if this is the case? Will raid5 be a bad option on 4x 136Gb 10krpm SAS drives? Main =20 workload is mysql/apache. I've already asked in stable- without a single negative response (very =20= nice!), but anyone had problems with the 360G5 and FreeBSD 7/ULE? Any =20= hickups or anything (if you already responded in stable- then ignore =20 the question :)). Thanks! -- Johan Str=F6m Stromnet johan@stromnet.se http://www.stromnet.se/ From owner-freebsd-proliant@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 14 21:58:24 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A1B01065677 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:58:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rainer@ultra-secure.de) Received: from bsd.ultra-secure.de (bsd.ultra-secure.de [62.146.20.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25C18FC20 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:58:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rainer@ultra-secure.de) Received: (qmail 58119 invoked by uid 89); 14 Mar 2008 21:57:13 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.1.0 ppid: 58099, pid: 58101, t: 3.7539s scanners: attach: 1.1.0 clamav: 0.88.7/m:44/d:4673 spam: 3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on bsd.ultra-secure.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.200?) (rainer@ultra-secure.de@217.71.83.52) by bsd.ultra-secure.de with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 14 Mar 2008 21:57:09 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Rainer Duffner Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:55:52 +0100 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Smartarray P400i and raid5? X-BeenThere: freebsd-proliant@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion of FreeBSD on HP ProLiant server platforms." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:58:24 -0000 Am 14.03.2008 um 22:30 schrieb Johan Str=F6m: > Hello list! > > I'm about to get myself a DL360 G5 box with a SmartArray P400i =20 > 256Mb BBWC. I found this thread in the archive: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-proliant/2007-August/=20 > 000297.html > > =46rom the thread one person claims raid5 mode is not very good =20 > without BBWC, but the original poster didn't seem to know if he had =20= > BBWC or not, and the thread died, I'd like to know if this is the =20 > case? > Will raid5 be a bad option on 4x 136Gb 10krpm SAS drives? Main =20 > workload is mysql/apache. > > I've already asked in stable- without a single negative response =20 > (very nice!), but anyone had problems with the 360G5 and FreeBSD 7/=20 > ULE? Any hickups or anything (if you already responded in stable- =20 > then ignore the question :)). > > We run a lot of FreeBSD on HP, but currently there's only one system =20 with FreeBSD7 and it has not been put into production. All the other stuff is on various levels of RELENG_6. We don't see problems. cheers, Rainer --=20 Rainer Duffner CISSP, LPI, MCSE rainer@ultra-secure.de