Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:34:40 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> 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: <200710151434.41801.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20071015154321.tl6x9nb9lwwgk8o8@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <24712.1192384461@critter.freebsd.dk> <47131B2F.1060900@samsco.org> <20071015154321.tl6x9nb9lwwgk8o8@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 15 October 2007 09:43:21 am Alexander Leidinger wrote: > 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 > >> 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). As I mentioned in the thread on arch@ where people brought up objections that were apparently completely ignored, this is far from useful for RAID monitoring. For example, if my RAID is down, which disk do I need to replace? Again, all this was covered earlier and (apparently) ignored. Also, what strikes me as odd is that I didn't see this patch posted again for review this time around before it was committed. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710151434.41801.jhb>