From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Subject: [ANNOUNCE]: Comparison of features between different SCSI targets (SCST, STGT, IET, LIO) updated Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:31:17 +0400 Message-ID: <4C7FFB85.7000006@vlnb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:64448 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756520Ab0IBTbu (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:31:50 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, scst-devel , iscsitarget-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, stgt@vger.kernel.org Cc: James Bottomley , "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , Mike Christie , FUJITA Tomonori , Ross Walker Hello, I updated the Linux SCSI targets comparison page http://scst.sourceforge.net/comparison.html, which compares features of the existing Linux SCSI target subsystems. The comparison includes SCST, STGT, IET and LIO. I added IET there, because it is the most used Linux iSCSI target at the moment. This page is intended to be a complete and fair feature-by-feature comparison between the targets. The only thing I have not added there is quality of various corner cases recovery, because I don't know how to measure that. SCST is really good in this area, while some other targets are often not too much, but I have no idea how to summarize it in an objective view. If you see I'm wrong somewhere or forgot something, you are welcome to correct me and I will fix that. Vlad