Re: I request inclusion of SAS Transport Layer and AIC-94xx into the kernel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Willy Tarreau wrote:
And when they go to adaptec site to find latest drivers and they only
find patches which forces them to find another Linux to install the
sources and guess how to patch and build, do you know which OS they
consider as hobbyist's ? The Red Hat ! (which they can call "Linux"
again then).

Adaptec is unfortunately a special case. QLogic and other enterprise vendors get along with quite well on $100k machines.

Both Luben and his predecessor, Justin Gibbs, were severely dissatisfied with the SCSI core. Often they have raised valid issues that need addressing, but their choice has been to work around or ignore existing code (and maintainers), rather than work with it, and fix it.


When they will buy hundreds of TB of SAS-based racks in the next few
years, and they will learn the hard way that Linux does not even see
them as disks, it will be too late to give my preferred OS a second
chance.

Hardly.  SAS support is coming, whether from Adaptec or someone else.


Having read the discussion from the start here a few days ago, I
believe that Luben maybe has not explained well to non-competent
people like me what the goal of his work is. I've looked at the GIF
on T10.org, but I think that the equivalent with what it currently
implemented in Linux would be worth doing. Maybe we would even
notice that current maintainers cannot agree on a same representation.

The current maintainers seem to agree on the path to transport independence.


Anyway Luben, I fear that for some time, you'll have to provide
pre-patched sources as well as binary kernels to enterprise customers
who still try to get Linux working in production. I hope that this sad
experience will not discourage other vendors from trying to take the
opensource wagon, as it clearly brings fuel to closed-source drivers
at the moment (no need to argue).

Yes, let's not argue this silliness. Other vendors don't seem to have this level of problem.


Eventhough I don't have SAS, I sincerely hope that a quick and smart
solution will be found which keeps everyone's pride intact, as it
seems to matter much those days. In an ideal situation, 2.7 would
have been opened for a long time, and Luben's code would have been
discussed to death as a new development needed to be merged before
2.8. Right now, as 2.7 is 2.6.<odd>, probably that ideas can gem
before 2.6.15.

Sigh. This is not about pride. There's already a path to fixing up the SCSI core to work nicely with SAS (and nicer with FC/iSCSI). Changing to a new path midstream, in the middle of addressing the stated problems, causes more delay, more harm than good.

	Jeff


-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux