Dave C Boutcher wrote:
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.
Does the IBM vscsi code/SPEC follow the SRP SPEC or is it slightly
modified? We also have a SRP initiator in kernel now too. It is just not
in the drivers/scsi dir.
-
: 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
