Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:53:41 +0000 From: Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mfid, raid monitoring daemon Message-ID: <4F5A3595.5070208@unsane.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4F59EF04.3070806@my.gd> References: <1331230126.3075.13.camel@powernoodle-l7.corp.yahoo.com> <4F59EF04.3070806@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/03/2012 11:52, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > On 3/8/12 7:08 PM, Sean Bruno wrote: >> I'm trying to decide if I should cram "mfid" for mfi(4) controllers into >> the src tree or if we should package it up into a ports package. I >> suspect that either one is acceptible, but it seems to make more sense >> to put it into the src tree since mfiutil is also there. >> >> Comments? >> >> Sean >> >> ref: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/sbruno/mfid/ > > For what it's worth, we use the following plugin for our Nagios RAID > checks on MFI controllers. > I'm attaching the nagios script below for those that are interested. > The downside is it uses Megacli and all the linux compatibility stuff :( > > > > I for one would be *delighted* if a system came up that would allow me > to skip the whole linux compatibility layer ! > Can you not get enough info via mfiutil? not to mention there is a FreeBSD megacli sysutils/megacli as well as sysutils/linux-megacli that said I favour a port for the reasons you give below. Vince > IMO: > - port: flexibility (can choose to install or not, can update whenever > you want) > - base: no hassle with managing the port, at the cost of less > flexibility (installed by default, updates only with the base system) > > > I slightly favor a port. > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F5A3595.5070208>