Well, this is continuing down the console server thread and not the netapp thread, but I think it's worthwhile to mention that I've seen and used the conserver package in environments with over 1000 consoles spread over multiple machine rooms. The consoles have ranged from netapps to various unix flavors to network gear and other random serial devices. The admins that I've worked with at those locations have said time and time again that they don't know what they would have done without the conserver package.

As far as effort involved, once you get the reverse telnet set up on your livingston, xylogics, cisco, (or whatever) box, you've done the hard part (in my opinion). But, you guys can judge that for yourselves.

And now for the plug: if you'd like the code we've all be using, check out http://www.gnac.com/conserver/. BIG BIG THANKS to the original authors!

Bryan

On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 04:06:08PM -0600, sirbruce@ix.netcom.com wrote:

On 02/03/99 20:54:15 you wrote:

...

I know someone was able to get conserver to work on a Sun (Solaris) and using a portmaster for the physical connections. I do know he had to work on it for quite a while to get it work...

We use Portmasters for console access. It's a pretty basic setup and the things just plain work... can't really argue against reliability... :)

Thanks, Craig. I had a lot of fun setting it up. :)

And actually, I didn't even do the method without the port number, although I always wanted to go back and change that once I figured out how to do it on the Portmaster.

That being said, if you don't like Livingston, er, Lucent, you can probably get Xylogics, er, Bay Networks, to work just as well. And as a former Purdue student, I have nothing against conserver at all, but I've yet to see it in full implementation across an entire machine room to know if it's truly worth the effort or not.

Bruce