Nicholas A. Bellinger, on 06/11/2010 12:45 AM wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 13:35 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 13:36 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
Christopher Barry, on 06/10/2010 03:09 AM wrote:
Greetings everyone,
Had a question about implementing mc/s using open-iscsi today. Wasn't
really sure exactly what it was. From googling about, I can't find any
references of people doing it with open-iscsi, although I see a few
references to people asking about it. Anyone know the status on that?
http://scst.sourceforge.net/mc_s.html. In short, there's no point in it
worth implementation and maintenance effort.
Heh, this URL is a bunch of b*llshit handwaving because the iscsi-scst
target does not support the complete set of features defined by
RFC-3720, namely MC/S and ErrorRecoveryLevel=2, let alone asymmeteric
logical unit access (ALUA) MPIO. Vlad, if you are so sure that MC/S is
so awful, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and start
asking these questions on the IETF IPS list and see what Julian Satran
(the RFC editor) has to say about them..?
Hmmmm...?
Btw, just for those following along, here is what MC/S and ERL=2 when
used in combination (yes, they are complementary) really do:
http://linux-iscsi.org/builds/user/nab/Inter.vs.OuterNexus.Multiplexing.pdf
Also, I should mention in all fairness that my team was the first to
implement both a Target and Initiator capable of MC/S and
ErrorRecoveryLevel=2 running on Linux, and the first target capable of
running MC/S from multiple initiator implementations.
Unfortuately Vlad has never implemented any of these features in either
a target or initiator, so really he is not in a position to say what is
'good' or what is 'bad' about MC/S.
One more personal attack and misleading (read: deceiving) half-truth? My
article is a technical article, so if you see anything wrong in it, you
are welcome to point out on that and correct me. But instead you prefer
personal attacks.
If you want to call me an ignorant idiot who's talking about what he
completely doesn't understand, don't forget to call the same the Linux
SCSI maintainers who also dislike MC/S for the same reasons (basically,
I've just elaborated them) and who also have not implemented MC/S
anywhere (although I've almost done it in iSCSI-SCST, but stopped in
time). Simply, one doesn't have to jump from a fifth floor window to
know consequences of this move. (Interesting, if I'm not in position to
say anything about MC/S, who is in the position?)
What's funny is that your link says basically the same as my article and
rather supports it.
Regarding your team being "the first", don't forget to also mention that
later your implementation was rejected by the Linux community and
open-iscsi was preferred instead.
Vlad
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"open-iscsi" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi?hl=en.
