topic Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input! in Operating System - HP-UX

SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

SAM TEAM — Wed, 09 Apr 2003 21:08:53 GMT

Greetings! We are investigating new things for SAM and system administration tools, and NEED to hear from you. It is your awesome feedback that helps drive our future direction!

Below is a very short mix of questions. Please take a minute and help us understand how we can work to make things better suited for YOU in future releases. When answering the following questions and wherever possible, please provide feedback on administration as a whole and not towards just SAM. Your time and input, like always, is greatly appreciated!

The SAM team

===============

1. Many tools in the industry are becoming web-based, therefore using web servers. On the systems in your environment, would it be acceptable to have an Apache web server installed on every system? The web server would only run when needed. Explain.

2. How important is a terminal user interface, or TUI, in your workday? If you use a TUI, what problems does it solve? Is a web-based GUI complimented with a command line an acceptable replacement for the TUI if they were to support the same functionality?

3. What types of system monitoring would be valuable to you? (e.g. HP-UX 11.22 allows some kernel parameters to be monitored)

4. Concerning disk and file system management (LVM included), we plan to address speed and LVM support. What other features would you like to see in a GUI? Would you like to see other features in the commands? This can be whatever you want it to be; the possibilities are endless!

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Brian Street_1 — Wed, 09 Apr 2003 21:52:54 GMT

SAM Team,

One of the features I was always fond of with (don't flame me, please) using smit on AIX was that they had a command button where one could see the exact command that was being run.

This was great in a couple of ways...it helped me understand what was happening underneath the gui level (and I've always been a command line kind of guy) and I could cut and paste the command into a script.

my $0.02,
Brian Street.

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Michael Tully — Wed, 09 Apr 2003 22:38:19 GMT

Apache comes with the OS these days in any case, so yes it would not be a bad idea to have sam sit on it.

We still use a number of dedicated system consoles. In normal day to day tasks we use PC's with an X based emulator.

As far as monitoring goes we are in the midst of evaluation certain pieces of software from various places. Perhaps some forms of monitoring allowed from glance could be included.

We try as much as as possible and it is encouraged to use the command line for disk and file system management. For me to suggest what SAM could have ... faster for sure, it is extremely slow, although it is better than 10.20 where 'ioscan' used to an eternity.

For Brian, the command lines that sam uses are shown under Options 'view SAM log'

Cheers
Michael

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Sridhar Bhaskarla — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:12:50 GMT

Hi,

1. I would not like to install anything that I don't need on the system. So, I won't suggest to have Apache installed on every system.

2. Web based GUI is not a good idea. However, I always liked TUI. It's faster than GUI and I don't have to worry about Xstuff if I am working from a PC.

3. Whatever EMS is offering now is good. Will be very happy to see other kernel parameters included.

4. I hate to say this but you can probably consider the features offered by VxVM GUI. We are currently lacking a good GUI for LVM though we are satisfied with it's simplicity.

-Sri

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

S.K. Chan — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 03:24:04 GMT

1- We would accept it if it's only for the servers (800s). In our environment the end user workstations (700s), we tend to minimize the installation of system tools. This is because we do not want to spend too much time doing detail troubleshooting on workstation. For example if there is any hint of any hardware problem, we'll just replace it. Basically we pay more attention to the servers instead.
2- Not to me because I hated GUI , however if it's web-based I should think it's fine. BUT please do not replace the good-ol-reliable TUI interface, be it "monconfig" or "cstm" which I have gotten so used to. Give us (the sysadmins) more choices but don't take away what's already in place.
3- The existing avilable tools (whether it's bundled with the OS or need-to-purchased) are sufficient.
4- I'll leave this question alone as I'm not a fan of GUI interface. It would be nice though if disk and fs mgt (incl LVM) GUI can be separated from SAM. Speed and reliability is definately a major factor in making this work.

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Yogeeraj_1 — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 03:38:30 GMT

1.
That should be OK. We are aleady running apache on most of our servers.

2.
TUI over a WAN or through a SSH connection through the Internet by far outweighs all possible advantages of a Web-based GUI. Bandwidth is still costly in most parts of the world.

3.
- Process, CPU/DISK/MEM/SWAP utilisation and System Tables. Most of these is provided by Glance.
- System messages

4.
Monitoring support in GUI is most important. For disk and file system management, most of us still prefer command line interface.

Best Regards
Yogeeraj

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Stefan Farrelly — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:52:24 GMT

1. Yes - it would be acceptable to run Apache on every servers AS LONG as it doesnt use much memory or hog the cpu - or potentially lock up. Using Java with Apache increases this risk significantly. But - my personal preference is to keep the existing text/gui SAM.

2. A web-based gui is acceptable but on ocassion when the network is shagged and you only have the console the tui is obviously necessary! - or when your X emulator wont run on your PC and you only have telnet access then the tui is again necesary. The tui is also faster than the gui so I often use it for that reason when in a hurry.

3. All kernel parameter monitoring would be useful - the more the merrier. Especially all the system tables (extending what you can see in gpm now) - seeing their usage, planning when theyre nearing full so we can increase them before something falls over.

4. It would be nice to have the full range of LVM commands incorporated into the LVM gui menus - eg. striping using manual (extent-based), or distributed, doing pvmoves, lvm warning you that if you extend a striped vol then you need to add X disks first, eg. Just make it more intuative. Also more support for common disk subsystems - eg. EMC.

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Donald Kok — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:35:36 GMT

Hi SAM,

1 Apache won't be a problem, as long as it does not interfere with other running apache processes.
2 TUI works (virtualy) always (console, through telnet, through LAN/WEBconsole ...) In case of trouble I want to be sure that this is available.
3 For monitoring there are other tools.
4 Maybe a graphical display of the disks and VG's. Where is free space.

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

H.Merijn Brand (procura — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:19:30 GMT

I fully agree with Michael Tully here.

1. Apache is not an option in our environment, because it conflicts with eWave, a server we have to run for customer Web) applications. [ Not that I like it, but it's not my choice. I want TUI's :) ]

2. *ALL* of out consoles are TUI. AIX and HP-UX. Day to day work is done from my workstation with Reflection-X or Cygwin/XFree, but low-level system actions are don on the console terminal. (swinstall is done from X11).

3. We have Glance and GPM, and I only use it when I suspect things to misbehave.

4. Integrated OnlineJFS (for free :), Integrated defragmentation (with GUI and progress, also for free of course). FYI AIX has both as standard for their JFS, no extra costs.

Enjoy, have FUN! H.Merijn

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Pete Randall — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:35:44 GMT

Thanks for asking!

1. If you'll throw in a free processor on each of my systems to run the damn web server that I have absolutely no other use for, I guess maybe it would be all right. Otherwise forget it.

2. Absolutely, unequivocably required! Not important, not kind of necessary: required!

3. At the very least, the Glance system tables output should be included, other Glance features would be nice.

4. I'll just borrow from Merijn for this one:
"Integrated OnlineJFS (for free :), Integrated defragmentation (with GUI and progress, also for free of course). FYI AIX has both as standard for their JFS, no extra costs."

Pete

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Niraj Kumar Verma — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:57:48 GMT

Hi ,

I agree with brian,

One of the features I was always fond of with (don't flame me, please) using smit on AIX was that they had a command button where one could see the exact command that was being run.

This was great in a couple of ways...it helped me understand what was happening underneath the gui level (and I've always been a command line kind of guy) and I could cut and paste the command into a script

-Niraj

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Robert-Jan Goossens — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:10:52 GMT

Hi,

-1- apache is not a problem.

-2- we "still" use consoles, TUI is required.

-3- All kernel parameter monitoring would be useful.

-4- It would be nice to have the full range of LVM commands incorporated into the LVM gui menus. Plus an extra window to monitor the command being used.

Kind regards,

Robert-Jan.

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Jon Mattatall — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:32:16 GMT

1/ Intranet - Fine
DMZ - Nope, IT Sec would not be pleased.

2/ Exclusively Console/SSH CLI used here.
A GUI with CLI optional would be acceptable, if not desirable.

3/ Disk / lvols / swap / procs.
Most of the 3rd party tools (Patrol, BigBrother) can monitor system AND application parameters, but more extensive monitoring by the OS could be integrated into BB fairly easily. On the boxes with Patrol, I'm not sure it would be of added value.

4/ For all that I'm not a huge AIX fan, their smit/smitty provides the command being run in a much more comprehensible format. I'd like to be able to see the command syntax BEFORE it is executed and be able to confirm my intentions. It would be nice to have this as an option, even if default behaviour was point/click/execute/show command.

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

John Bolene — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:37:52 GMT

1. Apache only run when needed? How would this happen? Send in an http request on one port, small daemon intercepts it and starts up apache on port 80 and sends the input to it or something? We are only allowed to start a web server on the systems that need it, some mighty powerful justification would be needed to run it on all systems on probably a different port than 80, since 80 is used on some systems already.

2. gotta have tui, especially for dial-in, gui interface on dial-in is SOOOO...SLOW....

3. normally use top or glance, so not understanding and not seeing what this is asking

4. would love to see the XA and VA stuff here instead of being in a separate PC product. But then again, tough to do on dial-in.

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Steve Lewis — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:45:40 GMT

Stefan's answer is great.

1. Apache is like using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. You can write a simple webserver in 400 lines of C. When a machine is newly delivered you often won't have a network so need a console to set it up initially, which is one of the times you use SAM.
A lot of us have slow networks (I administrate over a WAN that goes at ISDN speeds), so GUIs are poor performers.
Some companies even have internal firewalls so it may be inconvenient or against security policy to unblock the ports required to run the webserver.

PLEASE DON'T USE JAVA!!! As an example, the VA storage configurator (a Java app) goes at a reasonable speed over a lan, but is nearly unusable over our WAN or slip/ppp over modem.

2. The TUI is vital, for the above reasons. Some customers I have won't allow any root access to the machine other than text console and ssh. Encryption isn't enough. You have to authenticate the client machine as well as the client user.

3. I would like to have access to the following real-time stats:
3.1 i/o rate by logical volume
3.2 i/o rate by filesystem
3.3 detailed buffer cache usage
3.4 individual system call counts
3.5 summary of nfsstat
3.6 better info on memory/swap then vmstat / swapinfo gives me. Theres a good little program here in the forums for that.

4. For disk/fs management, links to the above stats would be good.
Also I want more detailed support for FC interfaces: - information, configuration.
I always encounter problems using SAM when changing defunct fibrechannel disks, it is better at present to use the command line fcmsutil.

The down-side to the TUI is it is sometimes hard to get the control characters to display properly, for instance if you are only given MS telnet to work with.

For more features how about these:
I would like you to change the network interface configuration forms. For a start you always have to check the hosts file after you have finished adding/changing an interface. It needs to be cleverer.
I want to be able to configure all the network parameters for an interface on one screen, thats IP stuff and speed/duplex.
Look at inetd.sec / inetd.conf and make it friendly for the SAM user. For instance, editing the file and signalling the daemon.
Similarly, edits of /etc/mail config files and kicking the daemon.

You may already have added support for the following, I admit I haven't checked.

CIFS
SSH - host and user key generation, service start/stop, config file edits, all in one place.
DLKM
IPfilter/9000 (built-in firewalls)

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Ravi_8 — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:49:13 GMT

Hi

1. No, we don't use Apache in our environment due to security reasons

2. GUI complimented with command line is the better way of replacing the TUI

3.glance plus gives better values to monitor system

4.speedy execution of filessystem/LVM commnad either using GUI or command is most welcome

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Geoff Wild — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:03:44 GMT

1. Apache is not really an issue - but do you need it to provide a wed based gui? Look at SWAT - doesn't need apache to run.

2. TUI is good for slow wan connections. I wouldn't like to see it replaced - but would like to have a 4th option like web based.

3. The more monitoring the merrier. :)

4. Online jfs support in the GUI? We use Big Brother, OVO, and cfg2html for monitoring/documentation - If HP was to provide some sort of Web Based "view" of LVM - then that would be great.

RGds...Geoff

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Alexander M. Ermes — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:06:18 GMT

Hi there.
1. No, Apache not used too much, eats resources like popcorn, going to freeze, when you just do not want it to.

2. Very important. What would you do, if your network goes down for some weird reason ?

3. Include these things in tools outside of SAM

4. Don't do too much for GUI, if you are not willing to set it for TUI as well.
Rgds
Alexander M. Ermes

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Michael Steele_2 — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:13:23 GMT

I also liked the AIX SMIT feature of displaying the SMIT commands to be executed and wish it was offered in SAM.

On the other hand nothing from the command line works in AIX and you have to use the SMIT command set just to get your work done, and this is definitely not the case with SAM, in fact, its just the opposite with the HP-UX command line command set. :-)

Re: SAM wants EVERYONEb,"s input!

Christopher Caldwell — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:20:21 GMT

1. Personally, I'm not enamored with using the web to do everything. A few things to consider -
1) weight and complexity vs. curses UI's or CLI
2) security (how many web interfaces will I have-how many points to I secure-how do I diffentiate among folks performing similar tasks (e.g. as with restricted SAM or sudo)

2. How important is a terminal user interface, or TUI, in your workday?
Essential for some things.

If you use a TUI, what problems does it solve?
Light weight. Low barrier to entry. Intuitive.

Is a web-based GUI complimented with a command line an acceptable replacement for the TUI if they were to support the same functionality?
No.

3. The more the merrier (probably).

4. No comments here, yet.