On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 09:40:44PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> >"Justin Cormack wrote:"
> >>And I am intending to write an iscsi client sometime, but it got
> >>delayed. The server stuff is already available from 3com.
> >
> >
> >Possibly, but ENBD is designed to fail :-). And networks fail.
> >What will your iscsi implementation do when somebody resets the
> >router? All those issues are handled by ENBD. ENBD breaks off and
> >reconnects automatically. It reacts right to removable media.
>
> Yeah, iSCSI handles all that and more. It's a behemoth of a
> specification. (whether a particular implementation implements all that
> stuff correctly is another matter...)
Indeed, there are iSCSI implementations that do multipath and
failover.
Both iSCSI and ENBD currently have issues with pending writes during
network outages. The current I/O layer fails to report failed writes
to fsync and friends.
> BTW, I'm a big enbd fan :) I like enbd for it's _simplicity_ compared
> to iSCSI.
Definitely. The iSCSI protocol is more powerful but _much_ more
complex than ENBD. I've spent two years working on iSCSI but guess
which I use at home..
-- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:22 EST