Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:43:21 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile sensorsd.conf src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/rc.d Makefile sensorsd src/lib/libc/gen sysctl.3 src/sbin/sysctl sysctl.8 sysctl.c src/share/man/man5 rc.conf.5 src/share/man/man9 Makefile sensor_attach.9 src/sys/conf files ... Message-ID: <20071015154321.tl6x9nb9lwwgk8o8@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <47131B2F.1060900@samsco.org> References: <24712.1192384461@critter.freebsd.dk> <20071015081507.yi9t4ot8asg0wcw4@webmail.leidinger.net> <47131B2F.1060900@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> (from Mon, 15 Oct 2007 01:47:59 -0600= ): > Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> (from Sun, 14 Oct =20 >> 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 =20 >> with his own way of displaying the RAID status. It's like saying =20 >> that each network driver has to implement/display the stuff you can =20 >> see with ifconfig in its own way, instead of using the proper =20 >> 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 =20 don't talk about alienating vendors and I don't intent to do. You may =20 not be able to display a full blown RAID status with the sensors =20 framework, but it allows for a generic "wors/works not" or =20 "OK/degraded" status display in drivers we have the source for. This =20 is enough for status monitoring (e.g., nagios). I don't know if you =20 talk about the OpenBSD bio framework or about some reverse engineered =20 RAID drivers in OpenBSD (or bad mails from them to some vendors). From =20 an user point of view the bio framework (as in "a generic interface =20 for the sysadmin to do RAID stuff", and not as in "the concrete =20 implementation in OpenBSD") is something you want to have. I don't =20 think that it is a bad idea to port it (and improve it). OpenBSD has =20 some RAID controllers converted to it and the framework already =20 represents an usable interface for a lot of cases. I don't know if it =20 needs improvement or not, I don't know if it can cover all current =20 feature needs for such a framework for all possible RAID systems (most =20 probably not), but it would be an improvement for vendors which want =20 to write support for their RAID hardware as they don't have to come up =20 with their own BSD code to manage those parts. And we could improve =20 "our bio framwork" (if we had/get one) based upon vendor feedback (we =20 already improved our network interfaces upon vendor feedback, haven't =20 we?). In case you talk about porting some "alienated" raid drivers =20 from OpenBSD... I agree that it is not a good idea to kick a vendor in =20 the ass (a vendor which provides some kind of FreeBSD support... if =20 there's a driver for raid hardware for which the vendor doesn't =20 provide any support for a driver for FreeBSD at all, it depends upon =20 the specific driver code from OpenBSD if it is a good idea to port it =20 or not). So in short: having a generic framework would be beneficial for =20 vendors. Kicking vendors in the ass is not my intention. Feel free to =20 document pitfalls in the RAID stuff in OpenBSD, so that nobody in =20 FreeBSd-land makes the same mistakes (but is able to get good parts if =20 the idea of an unified interface into FreeBSD). Sorry for not taking the time to write a more readable mail. Bye, Alexander. --=20 http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137 BEAUTY: =09What's in your eye when you have a bee in your hand.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071015154321.tl6x9nb9lwwgk8o8>