From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Scott M. Ferris" Subject: Re: [linux-iscsi-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] replace ioctl for sysfs take 2 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:19:18 -0500 (CDT) Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040907191918.C045E76C56@isis.visi.com> References: <1094571319.1716.108.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from conn.mc.mpls.visi.com ([208.42.156.2]:40642 "EHLO conn.mc.mpls.visi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268503AbUIGTTV (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:19:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1094571319.1716.108.camel@mulgrave> from James Bottomley at "Sep 7, 2004 10:43:00 am" List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Mike Christie , Mike Christie , Matthew Wilcox , Christoph Hellwig , iscsi -devel , David Wysochanski , "Surekha.PC" , SCSI Mailing List James Bottomley wrote: > > A host is the analogue of a bus. That's not a very helpful analogy, since only SPI and FC-AL resemble a bus, and all of the newer SCSI transports are switched fabrics. > In iSCSI that's really the other end point. Using abstractions > incorrectly (like a single host for the entire iSCSI system) is > bound to end up with problems due to the concept mismatch. I have trouble understanding your viewpoint. Your answers to the following questions will hopefully clear things up. Do you think Linux hosts should be used in a similar way by all switched SCSI transports (e.g. FC-SW, iSCSI, SAS)? If not, why not? Do you think switched SCSI transports should allocate one Linux host for each I_T nexus? Do you think switched SCSI transports should allocate one Linux host for each (SAM-2 or SAM-3) SCSI initiator port? Do you think switched SCSI transports should allocate one Linux host for each (SAM-2 or SAM-3) SCSI initiator device? -- Scott M. Ferris, sferris@acm.org