Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

OpenBSD Clashes with Adaptec In Quest for Docs 367

TrumpetPower! writes "OpenBSD developers have been asking for documentation from Adaptec for over four months. Adaptec's response has been to deliberately misunderstand what is being asked of them. A former Adaptec employee admits that the hardware is buggy and tricky to get right. So, as a result, OpenBSD 3.7 will ship without Adaptec RAID support. Personally, I'm glad that Theo isn't resting on his laurels."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenBSD Clashes with Adaptec In Quest for Docs

Comments Filter:
  • Just a note (Score:5, Informative)

    by FullMetalAlchemist ( 811118 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:05PM (#11992382)
    Just a note; the "former Adaptec employee" is Scott Long of the FreeBSD project [freebsd.org].

    I have not been using OpenBSD sice 1999, but hardware support was never its strong point... though what it supported was,like all the BSD's, supported extremely well.

    It's a good call, in spirit of BSD. Scott's drivers are exellent and they just need to port those.
  • by DashEvil ( 645963 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:07PM (#11992404)
    Your opinion is both wrong, stupid, and has no real world bearing. OpenBSD isn't a depreciated version of FreeBSD; both projects have a completely different focus, and depending on your needs one may be more suitable than the other.
  • by Nimrangul ( 599578 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:11PM (#11992423) Journal
    Yes, FreeBSD is the most popular BSD. But each BSD is it's own operating system, not a previous version of the same operating system like your analogy.

    It did not start with BSD4.4-lite, go to 386BSD, move to NetBSD, then OpenBSD, then DragonFlyBSD and then FreeBSD. Each are their own system which split at one time or another from the same tree.

    All four of those systems are maintained today and therefore it is not like Windows 9x complaining about hardware support. Windows does not maintain new versions of Windows 95.

    OpenBSD is the extremely secure and extremely open of the BSDs and Unix-likes. OpenBSD refuses to have anything that isn't as Free and Open as their goals describe into their system. Linux and FreeBSD are more into the functionality over ideals idea. NetBSD I cannot speak for though as I don't really follow them.

  • by The_DOD_player ( 640135 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:17PM (#11992455)
    Please, this is no troll...

    This is how we are supposed to "vote with our money" as "consumers". Yes, I know, it'll never have any effect anyway, but that still dont make it a troll.
  • by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:18PM (#11992465)

    Reminds me of Promise's definition of "Linux support" for a card I bought.

    In the case of the SX-150 SATA raid card (which has a hardware XOR engine and whatnot), that meant "we have binary drivers for distributions which are several years old".

    There is some source. Well, it's a 'wrapped' binary driver, and it's only available from "some guy" in Germany who begged Promise support long enough they gave it to him. You a)cannot compile it into the kernel b)cannot compile it for 2.6 because it simply isn't compatible. I sent numerous emails to Promise asking when a 2.6 driver would be available or if there was any updated source code. None were ever answered.

    Same story with the tools- unless you're running Redhat 9.0 or some ancient version of Suse, forget ANY on-line monitoring.

    Not that the customers are much better- one page I found about the card suggested that "software raid is faster anyway", which is an absurd proposition by itself. Regardless, why would you spend $100-200 more on a hardware-raid card complete with cache memory, and then just use the 2.6 SATA driver which only drives the SATA interfaces?

    From what I understand, 3ware has better support for Linux, but that means I have to migrate a large amount of data off the old array..

  • by fidget42 ( 538823 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:26PM (#11992503)
    Exactly what obligation does Adaptec have?
    They have a financial responsibility. If they release their documentation to a "legit architecture" then they will increase their sales accordingly. In this case, a "legit architecture" would be one that would have an impact on their bottom line (which would qualify BSD and Linux).
  • by ultima ( 3696 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:34PM (#11992549)
    Software RAID *is* very often faster, especially on a modern CPU paired with an older design -- you don't buy HW RAID because it is faster, you buy it for battery backup and offloading of low level operations to conserve CPU time and bus/memory bandwidth for user applications and so that if your OS or CPU/memory/whatever blows up, or you lose power, it won't corrupt the data on your disk array. Hardware RAID dedicated processors are simple, slow, "reliable" units -- not ultra-fast bleeding-edge dedicated units like you see on video cards.
  • Re:Just a note (Score:5, Informative)

    by Caligari ( 180276 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:40PM (#11992582) Homepage
    You misunderstand. OpenBSD already have a driver [openbsd.org]. They want documentation to improve that and more importantly implement a management program which can do critical stuff like check if any drives have failed.

    The management utility in the FreeBSD ports tree is binary-only. OpenBSD refuse to accept binary only crap, which is why they want this documentation.

  • by ArbitraryConstant ( 763964 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:09PM (#11992745) Homepage
    Interestingly, Theo of OpenBSD is more insistant that the entire base system be open source than the most popular Linuxes. GPL software is tolerable if there is no alternative, but commercial software is not tolerated.

    The only exception is firmware binary blobs (which all OSes need, as it is not practical to create open source replacements), they are tolerated if they are released under a license that allows OpenBSD to distribute them.

    That's similar to what Linuxes like Debian demand, and that's a lot more than Linuxes like Red Hat and Suse demand.
  • by sffubs ( 561863 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:14PM (#11992767)

    I had similar troubles with my Promise Fasttrack 100 TX2, which afaik is just a standard ATA disk controller with the capability to label drives as being part of certain arrays. The raid stuff is then done in software.

    Anyway, Linux support for this has been patchy. There was a native driver in 2.4 for some time, which worked on-and-off. There was also a source-wrapped binary driver, available from the Promise site, which worked occasionally under 2.4, but is incompatible with 2.6. I assume Promise have no intention of supporting this card under 2.6, since I haven't seen a new driver for quite some time now.

    However, all is not lost! This morning I discovered dmraid [redhat.com], which uses Linux's software raid implementation to make cards like this work. If you run Gentoo, there is an option for genkernel that will build dmraid into the initrd, which auto-discovers the raid arrays on boot. Magic!

    So, despite Promise's dismal lack of support, their cards can be quite functional. I'm not sure I'd get another one though - I'd at least try and find a manufacturer that provides decent linux drivers first.

  • by McNally ( 105243 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .yllancmm.> on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:33PM (#11992894) Homepage
    What customers exactly? If you were Adaptec, would you write drivers for your hardware in Windows, a platform you're programmers are very experienced with and caters to the 90% marketshare, or write drivers for the niche 5% MacOS X or 5% other *nix market?
    A re-read of the article might be in order, along with a scan of the other responses. I haven't yet run into a post demanding that Adaptec develop and release open-source OpenBSD (or Linux, or MacOS, or whatever you please) drivers for its hardware -- that's not what we're talking about at all.

    If we accept the claims made in the article, Adaptec won't even release the technical information necessary for people to write their own. That's what the argument is about.

    Everyone on here expects companies to spend millions in development and bend over backwards for their own purposes. We have to be realistic here and realize that we have to make it worth it for companies like Adaptec to support Linux or in this case, OpenBSD. Adaptec isn't interested in OpenBSD because it's not in their best financial interest, despite their best intentions.

    Actually, nobody seems to expect that. Unquestionably a fair number of people would be happy if it happened, but nobody expects it. What people do expect is for Adaptec to release comprehensive technical specifications for their cards to interested parties, a practice that used to be commonplace among hardware makers but has been in lamentable decline for some time now. Releasing the tech specs would benefit not only OpenBSD developers but Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS, and others, and while your assertion is correct that Windows has a >90% market share on the desktop, it's somewhat of a non-sequitur considering we're talking about drivers for a RAID controller that's more likely to go into a server machine. Windows still dominates in that market, as well, but not to the extent that it does on the desktop. By releasing the necessary specs and letting the open source community write drivers that work with their hardware Adaptec could, at very little cost to themselves, expand their potential customer base by 10-20%. Why won't they?
  • Slightly FUD (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sivar ( 316343 ) <charlesnburns[ AT ]gmail DOT com> on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:38PM (#11992915)
    "A former Adaptec employee admits that the hardware is buggy and tricky to get right."
    This smells mildly of FUD.

    What the Adaptec guy actually said was:
    The hardware is tricky to get right and there are bugs in different cards and different firmware versions that often need to be worked around.
    Using the word "buggy" like it was used in the Slashdot front page article implies that the cards are flaky and that non-Adaptec cards aren't (as) buggy. This isn't outright stated, but similarly saying something like "I don't use Microsoft Office because it is buggy" tends to leave the listener with the impression that other office suites are less buggy, even though that isn't stated outright.
    The Adaptec employee stated only what we already know--that different revisions of firmware have different bugs (in ALL products that use firmware, not just Adaptec RAID adapters), and that they must be worked around. If different revisions of firmware didn't have bugs, then different revisions of firmware wouldn't exist--the first one would have worked fine (aside from occasional feature additions and tweaks).

    However, to the original poster's credit, Adaptec RAID cards really do suck, and they really are buggy (not to mention slow, especially in RAID 5, compared to almost every other brand--and Adaptec's entire SCSI line is pretty consistant in that regard), but that is beside the point. Slashdot shouldn't participate in the same FUD that we so often criticize--just let the facts speak for themselves, and leave the interpretation up to the reader.
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:57PM (#11993068)
    "Its their decision and people shouldn't begin to whine when they don't get their way."

    And how else do you propose to effect change? Shut and sit down isn't going to work is it?

    Whining, boycotting, shaming, humiliating, mocking, deriding, bitching and moaning is a perfectly appropriate response to an idiot company acting in stupid ways.

    More people need to get uppity. Sitting quietly at your desk doing exactly what you are told isn't going to get you anywhere.
  • Yes, he is wrong. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20, 2005 @06:01PM (#11993110)
    The 500 error is new, its there because they don't want their customers complaining. Originally the email address worked, and for 4 months they got the run around and nobody would give them a "yes" or "no" about documentation, that's what he is "snippy" about.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20, 2005 @07:48PM (#11993750)
    "I read Doug's response. What I SAW was Adaptec saying we'll be releasing everything together in 4 months. That is when the company is going to be ready to release an SDK, and documentation will be part of that release."

    OK, that's fine. So customers running BSD will not purchase Adaptec RAID hardware until late-2006. Any earlier, and they'd run into problems with it being unsupported by their OS vendor.

    "The OpenBSD guys response was "Can't you read! I want documentation NOW or I'm going to take my OS and go home."

    Specifically, they say that if they don't know how to create software that works with Adaptec RAID, then they won't write software that works with Adaptec RAID. Sounds entirely plausible to me. Would you fancy writing a windows driver if you didn't have MSDN, SDK or API-reference?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20, 2005 @11:20PM (#11995141)
    none. but i've obliged by using all other raid companies, except adaptec.

    and i'm not using openbsd.

    used adaptec cards under windows, mac, and linux.

    enough is enough. i said goodbye to adaptec years ago...it was the best move i've ever made.

  • by snikeris ( 838429 ) <snikeris.gmail@com> on Monday March 21, 2005 @12:56AM (#11995581)
    This wouldn't be millions in development. It would take one guy 10 minutes to e-mail the hardware specs (which they'd have to have available somewhere for them to have written their own driver) to the OpenBSD team and be done with it.

    Apparantly, they do not have access to the documentation, because it does not exist. All they have is the source code. I can't find a link to theo's post but here is what he said:

    I have received information from a few sources that indicates that Adaptec does not have documentation on their management interface in-house. They only have a source-code implimentation, for a variety of models. So that is perhaps why they are so slow. That does however speak rather badly. I have not encountered a vendor without even internal documentation for their products in quite a while. Companies you've probably rarely heard of like Zydas, Atmel, Symbol have documentation for their wireless chipsets. The Adaptec SCSI chipset documentation that we dragged out of Adaptec about 8 years ago or so was 12 books. I hope this is not true. Any ex-Adaptec employees want to set the record straight (and please tell the truth..)
  • by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) * <{moc.krahsehtwaj} {ta} {todhsals}> on Monday March 21, 2005 @06:52AM (#11997326) Homepage Journal
    First, Theo and the other developers, although making good points, are being quite rude to employees.

    Rude? After 4 months of waiting? I'd sure hell be rude too. Look, I once had the powersupply of an LCD monitor break after 2 weeks of usage. I returned it to the shop. I called them form time to time to hear if the powersupply was there yet (technically they should call me, but after a month you get suspicious). They always told me the same "Hasn't returned from Sony Brussels yet". After *six* months of waiting (I still can't believe I waited that long), I went to the shop, slammed my fist on the counter and yelled out loud that they are *NOW* going to give me my powersupply back because I was waiting for *SIX MONTHS*. Guess, how fast they were to give me a replacement powersupply by opening another box of an identical model LCD-screen. Oh, and I can assure you that I must have added some "Fucks" and "Shits" left and right in my rant.

    Note that this was back in the day that a 15" LCD screen cost about 1200€. To this day, I can't understand why I waited *six months* before complaining loudly. The LCD screen is still in use on my primary desktop.

    So, rudeness becomes very relative if you consider the time waited.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @07:42AM (#11997486) Journal
    Porting Windows to SPARC and supporting Sun hardware would cost Microsoft a huge amount. Releasing the documentation for Adaptec RAID controllers would cost nothing, and increase their potential market. By not attempting to maximise their profit they are being negligent to their shareholders and leaving the company wide open to a minority shareholder lawsuit.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...