Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [ ... ] >> >> Vlad appears to be asserting that SCST is more feature-complete that LIO >> at this point. It also seems that LIO is somewhat younger than SCST. So >> at this point it might be interesting to see: >> >> 1. What are the shortcomings of SCST design compared to LIO and why LIO >> developers chose to come with their own solution instead of >> collaborating with SCST folks? >> >> 2. What features are missing from SCST that are currently available in >> LIO? >> >> Once this is sorted out and [most] everyone agrees that LIO is indeed >> technically superior (even if maybe not as mature yet) solution, then it >> would make sense to request SCST developers to go to file/line depth of >> the review. > > You seem to have missed the start of this thread. The design of SCST > is significantly more advanced than that of LIO, and it has already > been explained in this thread why > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg45856.html). > Hmm. That link seems to be misrouted. I was hoping for a design overview of SCST there; however it's just a complain to James Bottomley etc. Care to send the correct link? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
