On 12/22/2011 09:54 PM, Shyam_Iyer@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-scsi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-scsi- >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vivek Goyal >> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:59 AM >> To: Iyer, Shyam >> Cc: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >> scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] linux servers as a storage server - what's >> missing? >> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 01:44:16PM +0530, Shyam_Iyer@xxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> [..] >> >>> Simple asks - >>> 1) Provide a consistent storage and fs management library that >> discourages folks to write their own usespace storage library. Include >> things like fs formatting(fs profiles), transport configuration(eg: >> iscsiadm as a library), thin provisioning watermarks, cluster >> management, apis for cgroups etc. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> For cgroups, we have libcgroup library. Not many people like to use it >> though as cgroup is exported as a filesystem and they prefer to use >> normal >> libc api to traverse and configure cgroups (Instead of going through >> another library). Some examples include libvrit, systemd. >> >> Thanks >> Vivek > > Well honestly I think that is a libvirt/systemd issue and libvirt also > invokes things like iscsiadm, dcb etc as a binary :-/ > > Some one could always use qemu command lines to invoke KVM/XEN but > libvirt has saved me one too many days in doing a quick operation > without wondering about a qemu commandline. > > I am also asking for ideas on how to avoid this fragmentation because > just like libvirt others are also encouraged to do their own libc thing > in the absence of a common storage management framework.. > > Does the standard interface for linux end at the user/kernel boundary > or the user/libc boundary? If so I feel we would continue to lag behind > other OSes in features because of the model. > StorageAPI _again_. I was under the impression RH had someone working on it. (Actually I was trying to give it a go, but then got buried under customer escalations). So yes, we know there is a shortcoming. And yes, we should improve things. But I feel another discussion about this will only give us more insight, but not moving things forward. What about having a separate session at the storage summit (or even at the collab summit) to hammer out the requirements here? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
