[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Ksummit-2005-discuss] Summary of 2005 Kernel Summit Proposed Topics

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2005-discuss] Summary of 2005 Kernel Summit Proposed Topics
From: Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:35:15 -0700
Cc: Alex Aizman <itn780@xxxxxxxxx>, open-iscsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "'jamal'" <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Dmitry Yusupov'" <dmitry_yus@xxxxxxxxx>, "'James Bottomley'" <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Rik van Riel'" <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx, michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx, ksummit-2005-discuss@xxxxxxxxx, "'netdev'" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20050331114122.GL24804@xxxxxx>
References: <20050330161522.GH32111@xxxxxxxxx> <20050331114122.GL24804@xxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:41:22PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It wont work - I can guarantee you that if you add a limit like
> "we only support 8 iscsi connections max" then users/customers will raise
> hell because it does not fit their networks.

HP has been doing that for years (decades?) for parallel SCSI
in "High Availability Configuration Guides". It lays out exactly
what is and isn't supported. I'm sure other vendors have similar
restrictions. As long as the product is still reasonably useful
and the vendor provides a solid assurance it will work, such
configuration restrictions are quite acceptable.

I'm NOT arguing "8 iSCSI connections max" is reasonable or enough.
I just arguing some sort of limit is acceptable.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>