From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=vishwa@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 485tCr0RyKzDq5n for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 01:58:15 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 00REsBwY079528 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:58:12 -0500 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xrfehv1xt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:58:12 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:10 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:07 -0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 00REw4Zj50659482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:04 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBD8AE051; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4091AE045; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.85.94.48] (unknown [9.85.94.48]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Summarizing Meeting on BMC Aggregation From: vishwa To: Richard Hanley , Neeraj Ladkani , OpenBMC Maillist Cc: "sgundura@in.ibm.com" , "shahjsha@in.ibm.com" , "vikantan@in.ibm.com" , "kusripat@in.ibm.com" , murunata@in.ibm.com References: <4bd424fa-aafd-7526-e555-4355c0dca132@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:28:01 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4bd424fa-aafd-7526-e555-4355c0dca132@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20012714-4275-0000-0000-0000039B57F2 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20012714-4276-0000-0000-000038AF6D03 Message-Id: <37ad37ee-7d9d-dca5-bd83-3d0ee2faefaa@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-27_04:2020-01-24, 2020-01-27 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1911200001 definitions=main-2001270127 X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:16 -0000 Missed mentioning this variant. All the 4 nodes in the rack together form 1 Machine. So, a power-on would mean, power-on all the nodes. Similarly, "Get the data" would mean, "Get the data" from all the nodes. From an external entity, there is ONE power-on. However, it needs to be deciphered into 4 power-on, one per each BMC in the rack Thanks, !!Vishwa !! On 1/27/20 3:19 PM, vishwa wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for capturing and sharing the discussion here. If I am reading > it all correct, it looks like the aggregator here is an external > entity and not part of one of the BMCs in the domain. To somewhat > relate, this is kind of an aggregator like Nagios. Did I get it correct ? > > The email mentions "data and control". Could you give an example > solution on how below problem statements may be seen and executed by > the proposed aggregator ? > > *Hypothetical Problems*: > > Case-1 : I have 4 Nodes in the rack, with each having a BMC inside, > responsible for doing things for THAT node. > I want to power-on all the nodes in the rack and I want to use RedFish > from a Management console. > Where is the aggregator in this setup and how is it orchestrated ? > > Case-2 : Some BMC fails to power on the container node and it needs to > report the error back to the initiator. > > Thank you very much for taking this initiative, > > !! Vishwa !! > > On 1/17/20 1:45 AM, Richard Hanley wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> We had a meeting today to talk about BMC aggregation.  I wanted to >> thank everyone who joined. >> >> Below is my summary of the topics we discussed, and some of the >> action items I took from the meeting.  Please let me know if there >> was something important that I missed or miss-characterized. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> There is a strong need to aggregate data and control features from >> multiple BMCs into a single uniform view of a "machine." >> >> The definition of a machine here is relatively opaque, but it can be >> thought of as an atomic physical unit for management.  A machine is >> then split into multiple domains, each of which is managed by some >> management controller (most cases it would be a BMC).  There may be >> some cases where a domain has multiple BMCs for redundancy. >> >> Domains are relatively close to each other physically. Sometimes they >> will be in the same chassis/enclosure, while other cases they will be >> in an adjacent tray. >> >> One key point that was discussed in this meeting was that the data >> and transport of these domains is relatively unconstrained.  Domains >> may be connected to the aggregator via a LAN, but there is a >> community need to support other transports like SMBus and PCIe. >> >> An aggregator will likely need to be split up into three layers: >> >> 1) The lowest layer would detect, import, and transform individual >> domains into a common data model.  We would need to provide a >> specification for that data model and tooling for implementers to >> create their own instance of a domain's data. >> >> 2) An aggregation layer would take the instances of these domain >> level data models, and aggregate them into a single view or graph of >> the system.  This process could be relatively automated graph >> manipulation. >> >> 3) A presentation layer would take that aggregate, and expose it to >> the outside world.  This presentation layer could be Redfish, but >> there is some divergence on that (see below). Regardless, we would >> need tooling to program against the data model for implementers to >> modify their presentation layers as needed. >> >> There is fairly broad agreement that Layer 1 would need to support >> multiple protocols including; Redfish, PLDM/MCTP, and legacy IPMI >> systems.  There would need to be support for creating custom drivers >> for importing these various transports into a common data model. >> >> There is some diverging needs when it comes to the presentation >> layer.  Here at Google, we were planning to have the presentation >> layer be primarily Redfish and the common data model would be more >> Redfish focused.  Neeraj pointed out that there are some needs for >> other presentation layers besides Redfish. >> >> Some other design considerations include the hardware target for this >> aggregator.  This aggregator will have to run on an OpenBMC platform, >> but Google has some need for an aggregator to run on host linux >> machines for legacy platforms without an out of band connection. >> >> Another consideration is the security of this aggregator. The >> aggregation layer will have the primary responsibility of >> adjudicating authentication and authorization for the sub-ordinate >> nodes. >> >> One of the key takeaways (for me anyways) from this meeting is that >> there is a community interest in keeping this aggregator generic, and >> not tied to closely to a particular protocol, transport, or >> presentation layer.  There was mention of the CIM data model that may >> be appropriate for this situation. >> >> We will be having follow-up meetings because this project is going to >> take some time to scope out and design.  I will be researching prior >> art for existing data models that we could build a presentation layer >> off of. >> >> Regards, >> Richard >