On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:45:07PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote: > Haven't received much feedback, either it's a piece of s... or > it's just working fantastic, or ? > Anyways, I'm planning to be in Basel for BsdConn next week, so if anybody > has something to say about it, i'm a good listener. I for one found the idea very interesting. If we could have an iSCSI target too, then we would have a complete standards-compliant replacement for GEOM ggated/ggatec, which might also form the basis of a low-cost SAN. [*] However I didn't reply, for two reasons: (1) I think you said your code had no error-recovery. In my experience, the error-recovery code is typically the hardest to write, which implies to me the code is a long way from complete and therefore not really worth testing. That is, there's no point testing from the point of view "is this code ready for production?" when code without error-handling isn't, by definition. That's just the impression I got of course, which may be wrong. (2) I didn't fancy setting up a Linux box just so that I had an iSCSI target :-) Regards, Brian. [*] It might be necessary also to have some magic which maps arbitary devices under the CAM layer, e.g. so you could share an IDE drive, or a gvinum volume, as if it were a SCSI device. Or perhaps the iSCSI target can just be a userland daemon, talking to the CAM layer where the device supports it, or GEOM otherwise.Received on Wed Nov 16 2005 - 11:27:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:47 UTC