Linux kernel compatability

[Scott Long]

On Jan 5, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> BTW, I have nothing against having source level Linux compatibility in
>>> some places, because resulting binary will be FreeBSD one in any case, but
>>> I'm strongly against executable binary compatibility level.
>> 
> 
> Hmm. Well, that's a non-starter. Storage vendors provide tools for Linux and Windows. That's it. Those tools have to be used on FreeBSD. Therefore, binary execution of such tools, and the infrastructure to support that, is pretty much mandatory.

Areca provides FreeBSD tools
LSI provides FreeBSD tools
Adaptec used to provide FreeBSD tools for most of their stuff, back when they were still around/relevant
Highpoint provides FreeBSD tools

Who am I missing... Emulex I guess, but they provide nothing for FreeBSD.  PMC maybe, but I'm waiting to see how their integration with the Adaptec assets goes before I pass judgement.  Marvell doesn't, but they don't sell into the channel anyways, only to integrators, and their chips tend to be used for crummy software storage stacks.  Qlogic, JNI, and other FC players, maybe?  The shortage of enterprise FC vendor support is disappointing, but I think that FreeBSD has a lot more deficiencies in that area than just vendor support.

In any case, there is definitely a lot more that "zero" vendor support for native FreeBSD tools.  It lacks in the low-end BIOS-based softraid, and it lacks in the high-end FC area, but the middle is covered quite well, IMHO.

Scott