> So where/what/whom do we, as a user community need to put > the thumbscrews > to in order to get this support? Do we ask IBM for a linux to > VM library > access interface or do we turn up the heat on individual > software vendors?
I'd say we write it ourselves and have the ISVs deal with what we produce. Otherwise we'll end up with a bunch of stuff like the PAM support for LDAP -- it only talks to one implementation and it doesn't interoperate with anything else. IMHO, the optimum solution would be to implement something like iSCSI, which would allow a lot of different systems (both inside and outside the box) to access the drives w/o having to deal with whether the drive is sensable at IPL. iSCSI has good pre-existing drivers for a wide range of systems, and is a well-defined protocol and interface. On the client, you configure the existing iSCSI driver, map /dev/sg0 to the autochanger interface and /dev/st<n> to one or more drives, and make sure there is a really fast IP pipe between the client and the CMS DVM, and watch the fur fly. (if one of the ISVs wants to use this idea, let's talk. I have a pretty advanced notion of how to do this, and it's clearly my idea, ok? I also have some other ideas on virtual drive management that would benefit from this approach as well.) -- db ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
