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
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home