Redfish Dump Service Proposal

Ratan Gupta ratagupt at
Tue Jan 7 21:11:02 AEDT 2020

Hi All,

Thanks for the responses, Please find my comments inline.


On 19/12/19 4:08 AM, Bills, Jason M wrote:
> On 12/17/2019 7:25 PM, dhruvaraj S wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have an additional comment on creating the dump, there are some
>> dumps which can take longer than an hour on certain systems and BMC
>> has no control over its execution. Can we have an additional interface
>> similar to approach 2 in creating a user-initiated dump named
>> 'Initiate Dump'? Which just initiate the dump asynchronously, without
>> returning an ID, and such dump will get generated at a later time and
>> a redfish resource for that dump will be created after the generation.
With approach 2(Task based approach) we would return the task ID and not 
the dump resource ID. Hence I do not see a need to reinvent a new action.

Following is the flow in a task based approach which will also work for 
your mentioned scenario
=> User initiates the dump
=> BMC starts the task and returns the task url to the client
=> Once the task is completed, BMC sends the redfish notification(task 
completed) to the client
=> Client fires the GET request on the task to get the details of the task
=> Task should tell the dump resource ID of the created dump
We can use TargetUri under the payload property of the task for the 
generated dump resource URL.
Please note, mapping of a Task Id to the Dump Id/Log entry Id is 
internal to the implementation.
> I think this is a great example of where TaskService and Task Monitor 
> would be used.  The response to the command to generate a dump will 
> provide a URI to a Task Monitor that can be queried for status on the 
> dump.
> When the dump is completed and the new dump resource has been created, 
> the Task Monitor will return the location of the dump.
> I'm looking to start working on a Task Service design soon and will 
> notify the mailing list before I start.
Thanks Jason, It is good to hear that you are starting the design for 
Task Service.
>> lPOST https://${bmc_ip}/redfish/v1/DumpService/Actions/InitiateDump
>> dumpType=BMC/Host/<or a different type>
>> The main difference from approach 2 in CreateDump is, no redfish
>> resource for the dump will be created after initiating but only after
>> the system generated the dump.
> I agree.  The new Redfish resource should only be created after the 
> dump has completed.


I am fine with it, I have proposed the flow above for the task based 
What is your view where redfish resource has been created and the state 
of the resource tells that the resource is not in ready state or 
Get Operation on the resource would be supported which will get the high 
level detail(size,state etc) of the Dump Resource but the dump can be 
downloaded through the download action.
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM dhruvaraj S <dhruvaraj at> 
>> wrote:
>>> Few comments..
>>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 1:32 AM Bills, Jason M
>>> <jason.m.bills at> wrote:
>>>> I like this as well.  I'm trying to support a CPU crashdump that would
>>>> fit perfectly with this proposal.
>>>> A question and some comments below:
>>>> Will Dump only have the two types: BMC and Host?  Could this be more
>>>> flexible to allow for multiple different types of dumps from various
>>>> components?
>>> + I think dump types should be flexible to cover different types of
>>> host or bmc dumps from different components with varying formats.
Sure we can enhance the type of dump, it is enum in the proposal which 
can be enhanced.
What could be other dump type which I can add in the types?
>>>> On 12/12/2019 9:46 PM, Jayanth Othayoth wrote:
>>>>> Dump is an additional debug data associated  to an error event.
>>>>>   From the phosphor-debug-collector  perspective,  BMC Dump collects
>>>>> additional debug information, which canot be contained in the 
>>>>> error log.
>>>>> Please find my comments inline.
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 6:27 AM Richard Hanley <rhanley at
>>>>> <mailto:rhanley at>> wrote:
>>>>>      Hi Ratan,
>>>>>      I think this service is a really good idea.  A couple of 
>>>>> thoughts:
>>>>>      1) I don't think the semantics around the Download action are
>>>>>      consistent.  Generally actions are reserved for stateful 
>>>>> changes,
>>>>>      and only have post methods.  I think this could be simplified by
>>>>>      putting an <> in the Dump resource that
>>>>>      points to the raw dump file.  Then clients can do a normal 
>>>>> HTTP get
>>>>>      on that URL.
>>>> I agree.  Currently, I have crashdump as a LogService, so it is very
>>>> easy to list and download the dumps using the standard
>>>> LogService/LogEntry resources.

It makes sense to remove the download action from the dump resource and 
use the which points to the raw dump file.
Not having dump service as root and putting the dumps under logservice, 
do we want to say some thing like below
and now the of log entry would point to the raw dump resource 
file if the type of the log entry is "dump".
Now if it is correct then in that case the log entries would be pointing 
to each other to show the association of system generated dump with an 
error event.
Apart from this as we may have multiple type of dumps then in that we 
need to enhance the log entry to specify the type of dump.
>>>>>      2) I'm wondering what is the best way to communicate what 
>>>>> MIME type
>>>>>      the raw dump supports.  In theory that could be a part of the
>>>>>      RawDump resource.  However, a case could be made that it 
>>>>> should be
>>>>>      put into the Dump resource.
>>>>>      3) Perhaps the dump service should be embedded into other 
>>>>> resources,
>>>>>      instead of being a top level service.  I'm imagining 
>>>>> something like
>>>>>      how the LogService is setup.  That way there are a lot fewer
>>>>>      dumpTypes for any particular instance of the service.
>>>>>          a) This could be taken to the extreme, and the 
>>>>> DumpService could
>>>>>      be integrated with the existing LogServices.  This would mean 
>>>>> adding
>>>>>      in a new log type, and having a new action >
>>>>>      +Agree with this suggestion to embedding dump under log 
>>>>> service as
>>>>>      new EventType.  Also need an association  for each system 
>>>>> generated
>>>>>      dump with an error event.
>>>> Yes.  I think it would be better to integrate with the existing
>>>> LogServices.  The existing resources already provide a lot of what is
>>>> needed, so we can leverage that.
>>> +Agree with integrating dump under LogService, The id of the dump 
>>> can be
>>> unique to dump type, so something like Dumps/<DumpType>/<id>?
>>>> The idea that I'm currently using is instead of providing the dump
>>>> content directly in the LogEntry, it provides a URI where the dump can
>>>> be downloaded.  I was thinking of proposing to add a "Uri" property or
>>>> EntryType to LogEntry to support this.  That would allow many 
>>>> different
>>>> types of dump data to be included without having to specify the 
>>>> content
>>>> (similar to how the MessageRegistryFile and JsonSchemaFile resources
>>>> work today, perhaps defining a DumpFile).
>>>> With support for LogService, the DumpService would really only need to
>>>> add support for the "Create" action and all logs would be available
>>>> under the corresponding dump LogService.
>>>> For the asynchronous create, the Redfish Task Monitor seems like the
>>>> right solution to handle the dump as a long-running task. That way the
>>>> create command can immediately return and provide the Task Monitor to
>>>> track completion.
>>> +Yes, for some types of long-running dump tasks, the dump id may not be
>>> available immediately, The  response body with the dump id can be 
>>> returned
>>> once the operation is completed successfully.
>>>> In the meantime, I am using the LogService to track when the newly
>>>> created entry becomes available.
>>>>>      4) It might be a good idea to have some event support in the 
>>>>> cases
>>>>>      where a dump is created because of a machine crash.
>>>> Wouldn't we also get this by leveraging the LogService?
>>>>>      Regards,
>>>>>      Richard
>>>>>      On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:08 PM Devender Rao 
>>>>> <devenrao at
>>>>>      <mailto:devenrao at>> wrote:
>>>>>          Over all the schema looks good. Few observations for 
>>>>> clarity,
>>>>>          also how about we have multiple collection say
>>>>>          HostDumpCollection, BMCDumpCollection  and also a new 
>>>>> service
>>>>>          DumpLocations similar to "CertificateLocations"
>>>> If we use LogService, each of these collections could just be a 
>>>> separate
>>>> LogService.
>>>>>          Page 17: Dump Creation flow
>>>>>          1. The time line diagram should show that "Request to create
>>>>>          dump" return immediatley. The redfish client will be 
>>>>> notififed
>>>>>          asynchronously when the dump is collected through 
>>>>> DumpCollected
>>>>>          event. Request for dump with resource id should be in the 
>>>>> same
>>>>>          time line when it gets notified of Dump collection 
>>>>> completed. >         Page 19: For clarity
>>>>>          "List Dumps" should be shown as part of DumpColletion rather
>>>>>          than under "Operations on dump"
>>>>>          "Get Dump details" should be shown under dump service
>>>>>          "Delete Dumps" should be shown under DumpService
>>>>>              ----- Original message -----
>>>>>              From: Ratan Gupta <ratagupt at
>>>>> <mailto:ratagupt at>>
>>>>>              Sent by: "openbmc"
>>>>> < at
>>>>> < at>>
>>>>>              To: "openbmc at
>>>>>              <mailto:openbmc at>" 
>>>>> <openbmc at
>>>>>              <mailto:openbmc at>>
>>>>>              Cc:
>>>>>              Subject: [EXTERNAL] Redfish Dump Service Proposal
>>>>>              Date: Thu, Dec 12, 2019 5:09 AM
>>>>>              Hi All,
>>>>>              Please find the redfish dump service proposal for the 
>>>>> DMTF
>>>>>              attached.
>>>>>              Kindly review and provide your inputs.
>>>>>              Ratan
>>> -- 
>>> --------------
>>> Dhruvaraj S

More information about the openbmc mailing list