> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-scsi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-scsi- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vivek Goyal > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:59 AM > To: Iyer, Shyam > Cc: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] linux servers as a storage server - what's > missing? > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 01:44:16PM +0530, Shyam_Iyer@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > [..] > > > Simple asks - > > 1) Provide a consistent storage and fs management library that > discourages folks to write their own usespace storage library. Include > things like fs formatting(fs profiles), transport configuration(eg: > iscsiadm as a library), thin provisioning watermarks, cluster > management, apis for cgroups etc. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > For cgroups, we have libcgroup library. Not many people like to use it > though as cgroup is exported as a filesystem and they prefer to use > normal > libc api to traverse and configure cgroups (Instead of going through > another library). Some examples include libvrit, systemd. > > Thanks > Vivek Well honestly I think that is a libvirt/systemd issue and libvirt also invokes things like iscsiadm, dcb etc as a binary :-/ Some one could always use qemu command lines to invoke KVM/XEN but libvirt has saved me one too many days in doing a quick operation without wondering about a qemu commandline. I am also asking for ideas on how to avoid this fragmentation because just like libvirt others are also encouraged to do their own libc thing in the absence of a common storage management framework.. Does the standard interface for linux end at the user/kernel boundary or the user/libc boundary? If so I feel we would continue to lag behind other OSes in features because of the model. -- 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
