From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [Lsf] Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:26:52 -0500 Message-ID: <1301495212.2618.11.camel@mulgrave.site> References: <1301373398.2590.20.camel@mulgrave.site> <4D91BF90.8070909@redhat.com> <20110329173338.GD24485@redhat.com> <20110329184501.GG24485@redhat.com> <20110329195953.GD21671@redhat.com> <20110329202353.GG21671@redhat.com> <4D92C691.9070607@suse.de> <1301493722.2618.1.camel@mulgrave.site> <4D9339D3.50500@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D9339D3.50500@suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Shyam_Iyer@dell.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, rwheeler@redhat.com List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 16:10 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 03/30/2011 04:02 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 07:58 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > >> No, seriously. I think it would be good to have a separate slot > >> discussing DCB (be it FCoE or iSCSI) and cgroups. > >> And how to best align these things. > > > > OK, I'll go for that ... Data Centre Bridging; experiences, technologies > > and needs ... something like that. What about virtualisation and open > > vSwitch? > > > Hmm. Not qualified enough to talk about the latter; I was more > envisioning the storage-related aspects here (multiqueue mapping, > QoS classes etc). With virtualisation and open vSwitch we're more in > the network side of things; doubt open vSwitch can do DCB. > And even if it could, virtio certainly can't :-) Technically, the topic DCB is about Data Centre Ethernet enhancements and converged networks ... that's why it's naturally allied to virtual switching. I was thinking we might put up a panel of vendors to get us all an education on the topic ... James