From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 22 22:05:49 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B597516A41F for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:05:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dpk@dpk.net) Received: from shared10.hosting.flyingcroc.net (shared10.hosting.flyingcroc.net [207.246.149.144]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7236E43D46 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:05:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dpk@dpk.net) Received: from shared10.hosting.flyingcroc.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shared10.hosting.flyingcroc.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j7MM5mrR040990; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dpk@localhost) by shared10.hosting.flyingcroc.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id j7MM5mZQ040987; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:05:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shared10.hosting.flyingcroc.net: dpk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:05:48 -0700 (PDT) From: dpk X-X-Sender: dpk@shared10.hosting.flyingcroc.net To: Danial Thom In-Reply-To: <20050822215344.84711.qmail@web33303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050822150410.D20562@shared10.hosting.flyingcroc.net> References: <20050822215344.84711.qmail@web33303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OT: Supermicro IPMI 2.0 boards X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:05:49 -0000 On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Danial Thom wrote: > A more important question is: why did you "order > a whole bunch of servers" without testing one > first? A curious approach to computing. > > DT We weren't made aware that the newer servers were coming with a later rev board, and a customer came along asking for 30 some servers to be ordered "yesterday". The servers themselves work OK otherwise, for the most part. FWIW, this particular IPMI problem would not have appeared at all if we only ordered one server, since multiple servers are trying to grab the same IP/using the same MAC.