From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 9 14:30:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB41EB71; Fri, 9 May 2014 14:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blu0-omc4-s31.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s31.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.170]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CAFB98; Fri, 9 May 2014 14:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BLU179-W32 ([65.55.111.137]) by blu0-omc4-s31.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 9 May 2014 07:30:18 -0700 X-TMN: [AfKjoZl0cBhHJiMnJ4l7P0WFdmlGY7pe] X-Originating-Email: [brunolauze@msn.com] Message-ID: From: =?iso-8859-1?B?QnJ1bm8gTGF1euk=?= To: "sbruno@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" Subject: RE: wbem, cim and instrumentation Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:30:18 -0400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <1399473147.27372.1.camel@alice> References: , <1399473147.27372.1.camel@alice> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 May 2014 14:30:18.0380 (UTC) FILETIME=[336734C0:01CF6B93] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 14:30:24 -0000 > On Wed=2C 2014-05-07 at 08:39 -0400=2C Bruno Lauz=E9 wrote:=0A= >> One thing I feel FreeBSD always ignored is instrumentation frameworks.= =0A= >> I am talking about wbem=2C cim model and implementation like OpenPegasus= . Why is that?=0A= >> I ported OpenPegasus to work in FreeBSD with few patches.=0A= >> However=2C of course without providers a wbem doesn't go far. I started = to see how to shape providers for freebsd at:=0A= >>=0A= >> github.com/brunolauze/openpegasus-providers=0A= >>=0A= >> my openpegasus port is at:=0A= >>=0A= >> github.com/brunolauze/freebsd-ports/tree/master/net-mgmt/openpegasus=0A= >>=0A= >>=0A= >> Apple ships a wbem=0A= >> Microsoft ships a wbem / non-standard=0A= >> RedHat ships it.=0A= >> Suse ships it.=0A= >> z/OS ships it.=0A= >> Ubuntu and distro-like ships it.=0A= >> And Solaris does also.=0A= >>=0A= >> Why not us?=0A= >>=0A= >> The advantage outside of this idea is better coding technique and design= to expose API first and utility based on those APIs.=0A= >> if any utility can be used as API=2C this discard the need for applicati= on to use system() or popen() to execute shell code to accomplish system ta= sks=2C which is really bad but widely widespread in lack of good API exposu= re of those utilities. This reduce a lot of error with changes in utilities= switches=2C etc. and mitigate security risks.=0A= >>=0A= >> Wouldn't it be great to query FreeBSD with queries like:=0A= >> select * from UNIX_DiskDrive where Storage_Capacity> 1000=0A= >> or=0A= >> select * from UNIX_SCSIController WHERE LastErrorCode <> 0=0A= >>=0A= >>=0A= >> Anyway=2C this is just to talk=2C let me know your opinions!=0A= >>=0A= >>=0A= >>=0A= >>=0A= >=0A= > Are you going to propose updates/new ports for these tools?=0A= >=0A= > sean=0A= >=0A= =0A= =0A= Well=2C like I mentioned=2C it's pretty useless to publish my port of openp= egasus if there's no effort to develop providers for FreeBSD. A task that I= started working on when time permits it.=0A= =0A= =0A= My point was to see what people in FreeBSD community thinks about this=2C a= bout instrumentation and OS exposure to this standard.=0A= =0A= =