Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

would you like to include SmartRAID support #229

Open
calestyo opened this issue Dec 2, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

would you like to include SmartRAID support #229

calestyo opened this issue Dec 2, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@calestyo
Copy link

calestyo commented Dec 2, 2024

Hey.

Few months ago I've written an IMO proper exporter for SmartRAID controllers, which uses ssacli to do it’s job.

Originally my idea was to have that merged here, but then it got a bit bigger and I've also gave it an "exporter mode" (i.e. with a webserver listening).

Nevertheless, it can also be use in "textfile collector mode".

I do plan to keep the standalone repo and maintain it in there, but in case you'd want to include it in this repo (which would have the benefit of more people benefiting from having SmartRAID support more or less out of the box), we could do so (e.g. by subtree merging, or simply by importing new versions of it).

If you think it should stay separate, fine by me as well (in that case simply close the ticket).

Cheers,
Chris.

@dswarbrick
Copy link
Member

dswarbrick commented Dec 4, 2024

We can leave this issue open for a while to see if anybody registers interest, but AFAIK this hardware is nowhere near as common as the MegaRAID family of controllers.

If nobody is interested, there is little incentive for us to include it here, since it just becomes more dead code for the maintainers to ... maintain.

@calestyo
Copy link
Author

calestyo commented Dec 4, 2024

AFAIK this hardware is nowhere near as common as the MegaRAID family of controllers.

Uhm... it's what at least all HPE uses, and IIRC Lenovo, too... so I'd kinda doubt that they're less common, if not the opposite.

But anyway... I did not expect inclusion to be desired and it was just an offer - from my side we can also just close it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants