Re: Raritan Dominion SX Console servers.

Ernie> Actually, no. We're migrating off conserver because it means we
Ernie> have to rely on two boxes to have console operation.

So you're giving up the ability to have the mapping of host-consoles
to console-server/port done for you automatically?  With logging?  

Ok, I guess I can see it.  In my mind, the benefits outweigh the risks
for us.  

Ernie> We want to be able to have one box at each branch site. The new
Ernie> Cyclades boxes now have the capability to also act as a KVM and
Ernie> will connect to their managed power strips so that everything
Ernie> is managed from one box. Of course, this brings up the issue of
Ernie> putting all your eggs in one basket and all that.

Sure.  If there's a single port to log into on the Cyclades and then
you can pick which host's console to access easily, then go for it.  

Ernie> Of course, doing ssh to each port might be interesting.

Sure, it can be a big CPU sink on both ends of the connection.  Esp
when you should really only need one encrypted tunnel between the
ConsoleServer and the manager system (running Conserver for example).  

My problem that conserver solves is that sites with multiple console
servers are a pain to manage because you need to either login to all
the CS (Console Servers) to find the proper host port, or if you have
a mixture of CS types, then you have different access methods to use,
etc.

John