On 15/10/2007, Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Mon, 15 Oct 2007 01:47:59 -0600): > > > Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >> Quoting Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Sun, 14 Oct > >> 2007 17:54:21 +0000): > > >>> listen to the various mumblings about putting RAID-controller status > >>> under sensors framework. > >> > >> What's wrong with this? Currently each RAID driver has to come up > >> with his own way of displaying the RAID status. It's like saying > >> that each network driver has to implement/display the stuff you can > >> see with ifconfig in its own way, instead of using the proper > >> network driver interface for this. > >> > > > > For the love of God, please don't use RAID as an example to support your > > argument for the sensord framework. Representing RAID state is several > > orders of magnitude more involved than representing network state. > > There are also landmines in the OpenBSD bits of RAID support that are > > best left out of FreeBSD, unless you like alienating vendors and risking > > legal action. Leave it alone. Please. I don't care what you do with > > lmsensors or cpu power settings or whatever. Leave RAID out of it. > > Talking about RAID status is not talking about alienating vendors. I > don't talk about alienating vendors and I don't intent to do. You may > not be able to display a full blown RAID status with the sensors > framework, but it allows for a generic "wors/works not" or > "OK/degraded" status display in drivers we have the source for. This > is enough for status monitoring (e.g., nagios). I don't know if you > talk about the OpenBSD bio framework or about some reverse engineered > RAID drivers in OpenBSD (or bad mails from them to some vendors). From > an user point of view the bio framework (as in "a generic interface > for the sysadmin to do RAID stuff", and not as in "the concrete > implementation in OpenBSD") is something you want to have. I don't > think that it is a bad idea to port it (and improve it). OpenBSD has > some RAID controllers converted to it and the framework already > represents an usable interface for a lot of cases. I don't know if it > needs improvement or not, I don't know if it can cover all current > feature needs for such a framework for all possible RAID systems (most > probably not), but it would be an improvement for vendors which want > to write support for their RAID hardware as they don't have to come up > with their own BSD code to manage those parts. And we could improve > "our bio framwork" (if we had/get one) based upon vendor feedback (we > already improved our network interfaces upon vendor feedback, haven't > we?). In case you talk about porting some "alienated" raid drivers > from OpenBSD... I agree that it is not a good idea to kick a vendor in > the ass (a vendor which provides some kind of FreeBSD support... if > there's a driver for raid hardware for which the vendor doesn't > provide any support for a driver for FreeBSD at all, it depends upon > the specific driver code from OpenBSD if it is a good idea to port it > or not). > > So in short: having a generic framework would be beneficial for > vendors. Kicking vendors in the ass is not my intention. Feel free to > document pitfalls in the RAID stuff in OpenBSD, so that nobody in > FreeBSd-land makes the same mistakes (but is able to get good parts if > the idea of an unified interface into FreeBSD). > > Sorry for not taking the time to write a more readable mail. > > Bye, > Alexander.
BTW, the RAID status part of the sensors framework was already ported into NetBSD's sister framework, envsys(4). So this approach to hardware monitoring is no longer unique to OpenBSD. C. _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
