sensors framework continued (architecture)

[Nikolay Pavlov]

On Friday 09 November 2007 13:44:21 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Robert thinks that sysctl MIBs offer "a more semantically rich and, to
> be honest, better defined way of interacting with live subsystems than
> device files do in a generic sense". Nobody objected to this opinion or
> provided reasons why a fd based approach is better than a sysctl MIB
> based approach. Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez points out
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3433.txt (RFC for sensor MIBs).

I think a MIB approach is much more usefull between "Single-system sensors 
framework" and "Group-level sensors framework" and a good example here is 
a SNMP(the general usage example of the MIB defined in rfc3433). I am not 
a kernel developer and don't know whether it's a good for pass the data or 
not, but as experienced administrator should mansion that sysctl mib's is 
expected (IMHO) to be used as a configuration interface to define a kernel 
and system behavior. It's much more easy to use userland utilities such as 
vmstat, systat, netstat, sockstat than listing some stats and data via 
sysctl. Also i suspect that such complex and rich thing as sensors 
framework often would be a subject to various changes and extensions, so i 
vote to hide kernel part as much as possible. 

-- 
======================================================================  
- Best regards, Nikolay Pavlov. <<<-----------------------------------    
======================================================================  

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20071109/d39ab9aa/attachment-0001.pgp