[Ksummit-2008-discuss] Kernel Summit Request for Discussion: The Future of Target mode and Cloud storage on Linux

[Paul Mundt]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 06:43:34PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:40 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:26:13 -0700
> > "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab at linux-iscsi.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Yes there is another, IET, the one that has been included into a few
> > > > > distributions, and who's iSCSI logic has been included into other
> > > > > projects.
> > > > 
> > > > I think that Debian and Suse have already replaced IET with STGT.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Well, are redhat.com and suse.com services running on top of fabric from
> > > either IET or STGT yet..?  Linux-iSCSI.org services are, as will be
> > > running on top of open source storage cloud as we move towards VHACS
> > > v1.0.
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Why does redhat.com and
> > suse.com services need to run on 'cloud' technology?
> > 
> > You said that IET has been included into some distributions so I just
> > pointed out that some of them include STGT instead of IET now.
> > 
> 
> Sorry Tomo-san, it was a small jab at the fact that STGT is not being
> used recommended for production usage, and I am guessing that those
> websites would rather run on fancy storage arrays with closed IP storage
> stacks (I had no idea what they are using btw), instead of running on
> top of their own target mode stack that they ship (as Linux-iSCSI.org
> does).
> 
Yes, one could almost start to think that these are distribution vendors
that have their feature requirements determined by customers, or
something equally obscure. I'd be more concerned if random distro vendors
started implementing their own target mode stacks just for the hell of
it.

If you don't know what they're running, then what was the point of even
bringing it up? It's been pointed out that there are existing STGT users
that are shipping today and now you are trying to suggest that what they
run their .com on is in some way relevant to the discussion at hand,
whether or not they happily ship and support it already.

This is really the wrong forum for empty rhetoric, and it's also not
going to help you make your case, especially to an audience of people who
have no idea what you're going on about.

The fact STGT exists today and it seems that there's interest in
developing the kernel-side of things if someone puts the work in to it is
a pretty compelling argument for not ripping it out completely and simply
finding ways to improve what's already there. Unfortunately this tends to
be fairly incompatible with the my-stack-is-better-than-yours approach to
kernel development favoured by so many, especially when those people take
their ball in to their own corner and show up some time later with a 50k
code drop.