[1363] in SIPB-AFS-requests
Re: VRC16 monitors
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (yandros@MIT.EDU)
Thu May 12 04:15:39 1994
From: yandros@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 12 May 94 04:14:46 EDT
To: mhpower@MIT.EDU
Cc: jweiss@MIT.EDU, sipb-afsreq@MIT.EDU, rtfm-maintainers@MIT.EDU,
charon-maintainers@MIT.EDU, usenet@MIT.EDU,
anxiety-maintainers@MIT.EDU, yandros@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: "[1362] in SIPB-AFS-requests",
"[1524] in RTFM_Maintainers_Archive",
"[0782] in Charon_Maintainers_Archive",
"[28682] in Usenet_Meeting"
I think every server machine should have its own monitor connected, in
case there are log/error messages that are only available on the
console. I've seen machines go down with that as the only source of
information about what went wrong.
How are these two statements connected? If there's a problem with a
machine, then someone who has gone to all the trouble to go into the
machine room can, I hope, be bothered to plug a monitor into a machine
before rebooting it. The machine, or course, neither knows nor cares
if there's a monitor on the other end of that cable at any particular
time, unless I'm missing something...
Is there a *real* reason that we need a monitor connected to every
server in the machine room at all times? Athena System Support
doesn't seem to think so...
chad
