Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752543Ab0HXNCI (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:02:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:52053 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751375Ab0HXNCF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:02:05 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=vlCTeUVPsDLY+jZ38Ne8Ayk/ybs5qI82bYTVYfPmz+oUCVv6RySrwnPnFIrADf4JxY hDMKoJSdsGIzxpVLyIa5el4BYXdC8h6jvtVNH/AayRv/p4Y+mUAognMx692EkWdF1M5W 3bkK7V+VALQMdF3JjfLJgPPUFxvFvTX6sASRE= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1282595927.11194.78.camel@mulgrave.site> References: <4C69653E.6050808@vlnb.net> <1282077040.16098.47.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C6C1DC1.8090208@vlnb.net> <1282164188.10878.22.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C702030.2070306@vlnb.net> <1282423128.3015.35.camel@mulgrave.site> <1282582740.11194.17.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C72CEC5.4080204@vlnb.net> <1282595927.11194.78.camel@mulgrave.site> From: Chris Weiss Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:01:06 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... To: James Bottomley Cc: Vladislav Bolkhovitin , scst-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2326 Lines: 44 On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:38 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > ? ? ?* STGT users should just migrate to scst_local > ? ? ?* STGT doesn't have enough users to bother with > ? ? ?* STGT has fundamental design flaws which makes its pass through > ? ? ? ?architecture unusable and its ABI flawed. > > I'm sure STGT appreciates the frank assessments, but it doesn't seem to > merit too many "plays well with others" points. I get what you are saying, and I haven't use STGT, but if these things are true (especially the last), well truth sometimes hurts, and if they aren't true, why replace the target anyway? There is also some precedence for dropping features, at least temporarily and sometimes longer, to move to a new backend. In fact I have a fax server that I still have to run on a specific 2.4 kernel version because latter 2.4's and all 2.6's serial subsystem don't quite work right with the old hardware. Sometimes you do have to drop some old code to move forward, and hope someone that cares will fix it, and sometimes there really is not enough users to bother with. I haven't tried using LIO for nearly 3 years, at which point I was not able to connect a VMware ESX initiator and transfer data reliably, and Nick really didn't seem to care. SCST works, and Vlad worked quite hard helping me both with config issues and code patches to making it rock stable with great performance. If my memory serves, at the time STGT was documented to have issues with ESX so i didn't even bother testing it. I also rarely see any technical conversation on LIO lists, I actually thought the project had gone slightly stale or niche, until this thread. Let me also toss this out there: How many commercial iscsi products are based on LIO, and certified to work with other commercial products? I don't ask this because I think the kernel should listen to the whims of commercial products, I ask because working with things that aren't Linux is a clear sign of "plays well with others". Does LIO actually play well with others, not just its lead developer? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/