On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:55:03AM +0200, Danil Kipnis wrote: > Hallo Doug, Hallo Jason, Hallo Jens, Hallo Greg, > > Could you please provide some feedback to the IBNBD driver and the > IBTRS library? > So far we addressed all the requests provided by the community and > continue to maintain our code up-to-date with the upstream kernel > while having an extra compatibility layer for older kernels in our > out-of-tree repository. > I understand that SRP and NVMEoF which are in the kernel already do > provide equivalent functionality for the majority of the use cases. > IBNBD on the other hand is showing higher performance and more > importantly includes the IBTRS - a general purpose library to > establish connections and transport BIO-like read/write sg-lists over > RDMA, while SRP is targeting SCSI and NVMEoF is addressing NVME. While > I believe IBNBD does meet the kernel coding standards, it doesn't have > a lot of users, while SRP and NVMEoF are widely accepted. Do you think > it would make sense for us to rework our patchset and try pushing it > for staging tree first, so that we can proof IBNBD is well maintained, > beneficial for the eco-system, find a proper location for it within > block/rdma subsystems? This would make it easier for people to try it > out and would also be a huge step for us in terms of maintenance > effort. > The names IBNBD and IBTRS are in fact misleading. IBTRS sits on top of > RDMA and is not bound to IB (We will evaluate IBTRS with ROCE in the > near future). Do you think it would make sense to rename the driver to > RNBD/RTRS? It is better to avoid "staging" tree, because it will lack attention of relevant people and your efforts will be lost once you will try to move out of staging. We are all remembering Lustre and don't want to see it again. Back then, you was asked to provide support for performance superiority. Can you please share any numbers with us? Thanks
