| |||||||||||||
A tale of two SCSI targetsA tale of two SCSI targetsPosted Jan 27, 2011 22:15 UTC (Thu) by dougg (subscriber, #1894)Parent article: A tale of two SCSI targets
Thanks for the writeup. Even for those of us who are close to the action, it is difficult to get an overview. One small criticism: the title should be "A tale of two iSCSI targets". Explaining the term "SCSI target" is difficult and the definitive document (SAM-5) does not help in that regard. iSCSI is one of many SCSI transports (and recently a new one was proposed: SOP (SCSI over PCIe)). So I question this statement: "The most common implementation of the SCSI target subsystem is an iSCSI server, ...". IMO USB (storage) keys are the most common (and worst) implementation of the SCSI target subsystem.
(Log in to post comments)
A tale of two SCSI targets Posted Jan 27, 2011 23:48 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> So I question this statement: "The most common implementation of the SCSI target subsystem is an iSCSI server, ...". IMO USB (storage) keys are the most common (and worst) implementation of the SCSI target subsystem.
I suspect that he meant a SCSI target implemented in linux. I could be wrong, but I doubt those USB storage keys are running linux (yet), are they?
SCSI target, iSCSI target or SCSI target framework ? Posted Jan 28, 2011 11:16 UTC (Fri) by abacus (guest, #49001) [Link] Maybe A tale of two SCSI target frameworks would be a better title ? While LIO started as an iSCSI target (and its source code still shows this), SCST has been designed from the start as a generic SCSI target framework.
A tale of two SCSI targets Posted Jan 28, 2011 13:03 UTC (Fri) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118) [Link]
But isn't SCSI target framework about much more than iSCSI? Like Solaris's COMSTAR http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+comstar/WebHome ?
|
|||||||||||||