linux-kernel - Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:42:34 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> But ATAoE is boring because it's not IP. Which means no routing,
>> firewalls, tunnels, congestion control, etc.
> 
> The thing is, that's often an advantage. Not just for performance.
> 
>> NBD and iSCSI (for all its hideous growths) can take advantage of these
>> things.
> 
> .. and all this could equally well be done by a simple bridging protocol 
> (completely independently of any AoE code).
> 
> The thing is, iSCSI does things at the wrong level. It *forces* people to 
> use the complex protocols, when it's a known that a lot of people don't 
> want it. 
> 
> Which is why these AoE and FCoE things keep popping up. 
> 
> It's easy to bridge ethernet and add a new layer on top of AoE if you need 
> it. In comparison, it's *impossible* to remove an unnecessary layer from 
> iSCSI.
> 
> This is why "simple and low-level is good". It's always possible to build 
> on top of low-level protocols, while it's generally never possible to 
> simplify overly complex ones.

Never discount "easy" and "just works", which is what IP (and TCP) gives 
you...

Sure you can use a bridging protocol and all that jazz, but I wager, to 
a network admin yet-another-IP-application is easier to evaluate, deploy 
and manage on existing networks.

	Jeff



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/