5 ms·
This looks like a really neat design for many microcontroller level embedded systems. However, it mentions that one of the usecases is for the oxide BMC. AFAIC
by jabl 5y ago
This looks like a really neat design for many microcontroller level embedded systems.
However, it mentions that one of the usecases is for the oxide BMC. AFAICT, a "modern" BMC is typically a more or less full featured OS running quite a lot of code, like a TCP/IP (v4 & v6) stack, IPMI and Redfish implementations (which then requires a web server with TLS library etc etc.) and so on. Without the capability to make use of the existing open source user space code in these areas, this seems like a quite tall order to write and maintain? And how does the "static tasks" system without the capability to launch tasks dynamically, handle things like multiple concurrent IPMI/Redfish users?
- __d 5y agoOxide's Service Processor isn't a PC-style BMC, although it fulfills the same role in managing the hardware. So Hubris doesn't need to support eg. Redfin.
- panick21_ 5y agoThe whole point of their redesign is to NOT have all that stuff in the BMC. So an explicit design goal seems to be to not need Redfish. The idea is to have a minimal BMC that only does very few things and instead puts as many things as possible to the host OS.
- steveklabnik 5y agoSince I work on this project, to chime in: yes, the siblings are correct. We call it a "service processor" and not a "bmc" for a reason; the SP fits into the server in a way similar to a BMC, but we are not doing all of that. We have an opportunity to re-think these things, and we think it's worth it. As you've noted, the surface area of a traditional BMC is huge.