From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:21:02 -0500 Message-ID: <47A9C24E.7020004@garzik.org> References: <47A05CBD.5050803@vlnb.net> <1202145901.3096.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1202151989.11265.576.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20080204210121.GF18682@fieldses.org> <47A7986B.1070206@garzik.org> <47A8A1C8.2010407@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:52667 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750893AbYBFOVS (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:21:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Linus Torvalds , "J. Bruce Fields" , "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , James Bottomley , Vladislav Bolkhovitin , Andrew Morton , FUJITA Tomonori , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, scst-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mike Christie Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008 6:50 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> For remotely accessing data, iSCSI+fs is quite simply more overhead than >> a networked fs. With iSCSI you are doing >> >> local VFS -> local blkdev -> network >> >> whereas a networked filesystem is >> >> local VFS -> network > > There are use cases than can be solved better via iSCSI and a > filesystem than via a network filesystem. One such use case is when > deploying a virtual machine whose data is stored on a network server: > in that case there is only one user of the data (so there are no > locking issues) and filesystem and block device each run in another > operating system: the filesystem runs inside the virtual machine and > iSCSI either runs in the hypervisor or in the native OS. Hence the diskless root fs configuration I referred to in multiple emails... whoopee, you reinvented NFS root with quotas :) Jeff