Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

FUJITA Tomonori
2008-02-06T01:30:14Z

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:09:15 +0100
Matteo Tescione <matteo@rmnet.it> wrote:

> On 5-02-2008 14:38, "FUJITA Tomonori" <tomof@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
> > Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org> wrote:
> >
> >> James Bottomley schrieb:
> >>
> >>> These are both features being independently worked on, are they not?
> >>> Even if they weren't, the combination of the size of SCST in kernel plus
> >>> the problem of having to find a migration path for the current STGT
> >>> users still looks to me to involve the greater amount of work.
> >>
> >> I don't want to be mean, but does anyone actually use STGT in
> >> production? Seriously?
> >>
> >> In the latest development version of STGT, it's only possible to stop
> >> the tgtd target daemon using KILL / 9 signal - which also means all
> >> iSCSI initiator connections are corrupted when tgtd target daemon is
> >> started again (kernel upgrade, target daemon upgrade, server reboot etc.).
> >
> > I don't know what "iSCSI initiator connections are corrupted"
> > mean. But if you reboot a server, how can an iSCSI target
> > implementation keep iSCSI tcp connections?
> >
> >
> >> Imagine you have to reboot all your NFS clients when you reboot your NFS
> >> server. Not only that - your data is probably corrupted, or at least the
> >> filesystem deserves checking...
>
> Don't know if matters, but in my setup (iscsi on top of drbd+heartbeat)
> rebooting the primary server doesn't affect my iscsi traffic, SCST correctly
> manages stop/crash, by sending unit attention to clients on reconnect.
> Drbd+heartbeat correctly manages those things too.
> Still from an end-user POV, i was able to reboot/survive a crash only with
> SCST, IETD still has reconnect problems and STGT are even worst.

Please tell us on stgt-devel mailing list if you see problems. We will
try to fix them.

Thanks,