On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 15:55 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2006-03-24 at 07:38 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > A pure SCSI abstraction doesn't allow for shared head scheduling which
> > > you will need to scale Xen sanely on typical PC boxes.
> >
> > Not true at all. If you can do it with a block device, you can do it
> > with a SCSI block device.
>
> I don't believe this is true. The complexity of expressing sequences of
> command ordering between virtual machines acting in a co-operative but
> secure manner isn't as far as I can see expressable sanely in SCSI TCQ
I thought usb_scsi taught us that SCSI was overkill for a block
abstraction? I have a much simpler Xen block-device implementation
which seems to perform OK, and is a lot less LOC than the in-tree one,
so I don't think the "SCSI would be better than what's there" (while
possibly true) is valid.
Cheers!
Rusty.
--
ccontrol: http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/ccontrol
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
