OpenBSD Journal

OpenBSD 3.9 adds sensor framework

Contributed by dhartmei on from the dying-fans-and-hot-cpus dept.

Ingrid Marson writes on ZDNet:
The upcoming version of OpenBSD has better buffer-overflow protection, and can ease the burden of systems monitoring through a new sensor interface framework.

Open BSD 3.9 will include a new sensor framework to allow system administrators to monitor the environmental conditions of servers running OpenBSD. [...]

(Comments are closed)


Comments
  1. By Roman (169.200.215.15) on

    Nice article.

  2. By Anonymous Coward (130.76.96.17) on

    "There is a significant new sensor framework [in OpenBSD 3.9], which supports voltage sensors, fan sensors, temperature sensors, and so on," said de Raadt. "Such a feature is still missing in Linux and other major operating systems."

    Have I just imagined using i2c and lm_sensors on linux for the last 5 years then?

    Comments
    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.179.123.124) on

      I think that the comment was meant to refer to an *integrated* sensor framework, as opposed to sensor frameworks which are accessed and behave in different ways depending on the hardware.

      Frankly, I'd rather have the former.

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (83.147.128.114) on

        Exactly. Sensors under OpenBSD simply work with zero configuration required. sensord daemon is integrated into base too.

        Comments
        1. By Chad Loder (216.239.132.34) on

          Exactly. Sensors under OpenBSD simply work with zero configuration required. sensord daemon is integrated into base too.

          That's not true. The sensors get stuck under various sysctls with various numeric names and you have to go figure out which sensors do what and what the acceptable range of values is for them, then add them to sensorsd.conf.

          Comments
          1. By Anonymous Coward (213.79.32.147) on

            Sure, but my point is that all the needed parts are included by default. Of course, you might need to do some config.

    2. By Nate (65.95.229.9) on

      Yes, as has been noted, the keyword was framework, not hodgepodge of different tools.

    3. By kernelpanicked (24.28.142.230) on

      The difference is that these are actually integrated and I'm pretty sure they'll work on a lot of "standard" hardware. Unlike lm_sensors and the maybe 3 high end motherboards that it supports decently.

    4. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

      to quote :

      "Regarding specifically the "i2c" subsystem: in the Linux world there is the lm-sensors package, which requires all sorts of hand-configuration for each specific machine. In OpenBSD, we carefully probe for the devices, and it should just work, on every single PC, without any configuration. Thus, pretty much every OpenBSD 3.9 machine will have some sort of sensor now."

      - Theo de Raadt

  3. By RC (71.105.184.65) on

    Errr, so what's *new* about this, as opposed to the OpenBSD sensor framework I've been using since 3.5?

    Comments
    1. By Anonymous Coward (213.79.32.147) on

      Supports a lot more sensors, for one.

      Comments
      1. By RC (71.105.185.121) on

        I noticed as much, but "new sensor FRAMEWORK" has been repeated over and over. Surely it can't be the same old framework?

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (87.78.71.128) on

          sure; it can be the much improved "framework". it's still just some random news article.

        2. By tedu (69.12.168.114) on

          the i2c "framework" code is basically all new.

  4. By Anonymous Coward (66.98.168.78) on

    Does it sense when OpenBSD is bankrupt?

    Comments
    1. By Anonymous Coward (66.98.168.78) on

      I must admit that that was a bad/tasteless joke on my part. It just sort of made me laugh given the circumstances. In all seriousness, though, I donated to OpenBSD via paypal a few days ago. I'm a big fan of the system and wasn't meaning to troll.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (69.143.22.42) on

      hahahaha. theo will have your head for such talk!

    3. By Anonymous Coward (84.188.232.31) on

      I know it`s kind of OT but:

      If nobody helps WHY the hell do OpenSSH-Programmers care for "portable"-Versions?

      Comments
      1. By Lennie (212.203.25.37) on

        If the internet is a safer place for others, it's also safer for the OpenBSD developers.

        And ofcourse less junk means more bandwidth. :-)

        Well, that was kinda the gist of the comment from an OpenSSH developer, don't remember who.

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (87.78.71.128) on

          FREEDOM!!!

      2. By Anonymous Coward (203.191.40.226) on

        Because OpenBSD/OpenSSH developer care with other operating system. That's one of great thing about OpenBSD/OpenSSH developer.

  5. By Anonymous Coward (82.79.81.6) on

    This framework work on older hardware, like Pentium III computers? I need to have a special feature on motherboard?

    Comments
    1. By Anonymous Coward (87.78.64.143) on

      Depends on your hardware; Yes your mobo has to have a (supported) monitoring-chip.
      I have P3 boards with and without sensors support.

      You can check the supported devices on the Hardware-page.
      http://www.openbsd.org/i386.html
      Search for: "Hardware monitoring sensors, including:"

    2. By djm@ (203.217.30.86) on

      Probably, there are iic(4) connected sensors in computers even older. My Celeron-600 (early P-III era) reports this:
      hw.sensors.0=admtm0, Internal, temp, 38.00 degC / 100.40 degF
      hw.sensors.1=admtm0, External, temp, 30.00 degC / 86.00 degF
      hw.sensors.2=admtm0, 2.5 V, volts_dc, 2.50 V
      hw.sensors.3=admtm0, Vccp, volts_dc, 0.00 V
      hw.sensors.4=admtm0, 3.3 V, volts_dc, 3.32 V
      hw.sensors.5=admtm0, 5 V, volts_dc, 4.97 V
      hw.sensors.6=admtm0, 12 V, volts_dc, 12.00 V
      hw.sensors.7=admtm0, Vcc, volts_dc, 3.37 V
      

  6. By thomasw.xhrl (70.71.136.212) on

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/23/2333222

    Comments
    1. By tedu (69.12.168.114) on

      http://www.openbsd.org/39.html

      Comments
      1. By Matthias Kilian (84.134.64.42) on

        And the patch to sendmail is already sitting on the FTP mirrors, so please don't forget to patch after you all got your 3.9 CDs.

        For yet unknown reasons, the 3.9 release and the sendmail bug did meet in the murphy time/space continuum.

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (87.78.71.128) on

          timing suxx...

          Comments
          1. By Anonymous Coward (213.76.250.62) on

            Would be nice to have sendmail in one piece of source from OBSD, if one doesn't want to have all sources to compile new sendmail eg. with sasl. It is time to push sendmail to ports, may be? (it is no trolling)

    2. By Lennie (212.203.25.37) on

      I wish there was a free enough alternative to Sendmail that the 
      OpenBSD people would want to ship in the base-install.
      
      But this already doesn't fit:
      
      - QMail (only able to distribute builds made by DJB himself ?)
      - Exim (GPL)
      - Postfix (IBM Secure Mailer license)
      - maybe even Courier-MTA (GPL) ?
      

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

        Dude, who cares? pkg_add $insermyfavoritemailer

        why do people always bring this up?

      2. By Anonymous Coward (70.124.65.113) on

        ZMailer is available under a BSD license and is touted as a sendmail replacement.

        Comments
        1. By Frank Denis (82.224.188.215) on http://www.manucure-pro.com

          Yes and Zmailer is both flexible and fast.

          But it's also an horror to configure.

          Comments
          1. By CT (137.240.136.82) on

            I personally use Postfix.. Disclaimer: not a troll.. Sendmail isn't made for humans.. :-) Disclaimer: end.. I hope my old Celeron supports this..

            Comments
            1. By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on

              Sendmail is very easy to configure. Especially on openbsd where it comes with a very good .mc already for you.

            2. By Charles (216.229.170.65) on

              Some wag once commented that an put an infinite amount of monkeys in front of an infinite amount of typewriters and give them an infinite amount of time, eventually they would compose the entire works of Shakespeare.

              However, in the mean time, all they seem to be able to come up with is an infinite number of sendmail.cf files.

              Comments
              1. By Matthias Kilian (84.134.62.35) on

                See? Sendmail is easy to configure -- even monkeys can do it.

        2. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.1.194) on

          The buggiest and most security problem prone piece of software I have seen to date (other than possibly outlook) that actually purports to being a mail handling entity.

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]