Jeff Garzik wrote: >Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:37 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>> In fact, SCSI should make a few things easier, because the notion of >>>> host+bus topology is already present, and notion of messaging is already >>>> present, so you don't have to recreate that in a Xen block device >>>> infrastructure. >>> Another benefit of SCSI: when an IBM hypervisor in the Linux kernel >>> switched to SCSI, that allowed them to replace several drivers (virt >>> disk, virt cdrom, virt floppy?) with a single virt-SCSI driver. > >> but there's a generic one for that: iSCSI >> so in theory you only need to provide a network driver then ;) > >Talk about lots of overhead :) > >OTOH, I bet that T10 is acting at high speed, right this second, to form >a committee, and multiple sub-committees, to standardize SCSI >transported over XenBus. SXP anyone? :) Actually SRP (which T10 has now stopped working on) fits the bill very nicely. I have to say that moving the IBM virtual drivers from a random collection of unique drivers (viodisk, viotape, viocd) to a single virtual SCSI HBA made life much easier. There is a group (actually, at least two groups) working on SCSI target infrastructures...once that is in place, I would expect we could start hacking a Xen virtual HBA. We looked at iSCSI as a transport (instead of SRP) but we felt that the added complexity made it unlikely that the average human could successfully boot their virtual machine Dave B - : 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
