[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47A9C24E.7020004@garzik.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:21:02 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
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
Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 6:50 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> 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
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists