Re: [SAGE] IP KVM's and PDU which give you the most bang for youbuck

[Richard Chycoski <rskiadmin@chycoski.com>]

You still don't get full KVM - this communicates with the machines via 
serial ports. If your machine is seriously hung, this doesn't get you 
the console.

- Richard


Martin Jackson wrote:
> Good point, I was just checking out the opengear site (www.opengear.com) 
> and they have a different take from the other IP KVM vendors, i.e. you 
> can use console redirection and Windows Emergency Management Services to 
> manage Windows 2003 & XP using a serial console server, not sure how 
> much functionality is available though but if it's acceptable $30 to $40 
> per port is more than worth it.
> 
> -Martin
> 
> Michael T. Halligan wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Nate, given the fact that remote PDUs are about $20 per port, and IP  
>> kvms seem to be somewhere
>> in the ballpark of $200 - $400 per port.. If you're not using  
>> windows, a serial console goes a long way.
>>
>> Michael T. Halligan
>> - -------------------------------------
>> BitPusher, LLC
>> http://www.bitpusher.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2006, at 9:21 AM, nmedbery@museverte.net wrote:
>>
>>> We currently use a Raritan Dominian KX 32 port KVM over IP.  I don't
>>> really like it.  You have to install their client software and it uses
>>> some Internet Explorer components (ActiveX actually).  The KVM itself
>>> locks up from time to time and needs to be reset.  Sometimes it  
>>> recovers,
>>> sometimes it does not.  I upgraded the firmware recently and then  
>>> grabbed
>>> the new Java client, but I thought the interface got worse!  The older
>>> interface (which still works thankfully) has nice keyboard  shortcuts to
>>> refresh the screen etc.  On the new client, you had to use a key  
>>> sequence
>>> just to bring up the menu giving you the option of a screen  refresh, 
>>> which
>>> had to be clicked with your mouse.  It's possible that a keyboard  
>>> sequence
>>> could have been used, but it was not intuitive enough for me to  
>>> figure out
>>> quickly, so I went back to the old client.
>>>
>>> The mouse synchronization seems a little off to me as well and the  
>>> screen
>>> refreshes are not very good.  Maybe that is more to do with the  
>>> "over IP"
>>> part, but I doubt it.  I just have not used other products so I cannot
>>> compare.  I do know that I don't get a warm fuzzy from using this  thing
>>> though.
>>>
>>> I have used Cyclades TS-series equipment and always liked those.  I  
>>> do not
>>> know what their KVM over IP products are like and would be  
>>> interested in
>>> hearing what others have to say about them.
>>>     -Nate
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Lance A. Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lucky Dog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Check out the Raritan line of PDU and KVM.
>>>>>
>>>>> The PDUs have remote control ability via a console port that can  
>>>>> also be
>>>>> connected to the KVM.  The KVM has network control so you can  
>>>>> access the
>>>>> console without having to actually be in front of the rack.
>>>>>
>>>>> They can be a bit pricy IMHO but it's turning out to be well  worth 
>>>>> it when
>>>>> you can VPN in from home and either connect to the console or  
>>>>> power cycle a
>>>>> device without having to drive in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I last used Raritan equipment (7 months ago), they were selling
>>>> Avocent's DSView (previously mentioned here) as the "remote  access" 
>>>> part
>>>> of their solution.  It sucked to have to rdesktop into a windows  
>>>> machine
>>>> from linux Linux box so I could run the DSView client to access the
>>>> console on my linux servers. :-\
>>>>
>>>> --[Lance]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
>>
>> iD8DBQFD2mM6wjCqooJyNAMRAr1UAKC/Q2F3ckVWFRChCScWP+/GP63iIQCgop7F
>> TzJBHLExuB7aQNIciEpAMWc=
>> =TcVM
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>