Re: stgt a new version of iscsi target?

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>]

Mike Christie wrote:
>>
>> Are you sure that there are no now or will be available in the nearest 
>> feature such (eg iSCSI) SCSI arrays with response time/latency so 
>> small that having 5 (five) context switches or more per command, some 
>> of which include map/unmap operations, will not increase the latency 
>> too much? I mean, eg NFS server, which originally was user space 
>> daemon and many people didn't want it in the kernel. Eventually, it's 
>> in. I don't see any fundamental difference between NFS server and SCSI 
>> target server, 
> 
> 
> Isn't the reason a NFS server is still in the kernel is becuase some of 
> the locking difficulties?

Might be. But from what I remember, the major reason was the 
performance. After googling a bit I found many acknowledgments of that.

Vlad


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click