Re: sensors framework continued (architecture)

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. <<<-----------------------------------
======================================================================

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Relevant Pages