iSCSI for Mac OS X? 60
CoffeePlease asks: "Is anyone aware of development going on for iSCSI drivers for Mac OS X? I really need this but it's only out for Windows and Linux so far. I can't use the Linux drivers - they might run, but only as a command-line process, and I need other software to recognize the drives."
Not to my knowledge (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not to my knowledge (Score:4, Informative)
Nope, unfortunately. File system drivers for MacOS X would have to be written as a kext and would be IOKit-based. Totally un-BSD ...
My first point of call would be the Darwin-Drivers [apple.com] mailing list and archives.
Re:Not to my knowledge (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not to my knowledge (Score:3, Informative)
File system drivers for MacOS X would have to be written as a kext and would be IOKit-based. Totally un-BSD
If it were a file system, you would be wrong (since the VFS layer is basically BSD), but it isn't a file system; it's a block device. So yes, it would be an I/O Kit KEXT.
However, to say that it's "totally un-BSD" is a stretch. BSD drivers are relatively easy to port to Mac OS X if they are written correctly. The wrapper tends to be relatively small, with additional changes needed for synchronization where applicable.
Re:Not to my knowledge (Score:2, Informative)
wait a minute (Score:2)
iSCSI isn't even fully standardized! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:iSCSI isn't even fully standardized! (Score:1, Funny)
iSCSI on Linux... (Score:4, Informative)
http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/
Re:iSCSI on Linux... (Score:2)
Joe
Re:iSCSI on Linux... (Score:1)
You normally wouldn't run a iSCSI server on a server box, better to run some type of file server on those.
Re:iSCSI on Linux... (Score:1)
The NBD stuff looks pretty fragile; I was hoping someone would build a more robust iSCSI server for Unix.
Yah, I know. If I had the time, I would work on it.
Joe
oh, whatever (Score:4, Informative)
iSCSI is just another way of solving a problem that's already been solved in any number of other ways. You need to attach a computer to some storage. Okay. You can use direct-attach FireWire storage. That has the advantage of being absolutely bullet-proof. Or you can use Fibre Channel to attach to a switched fabric. That works fine, too; just present a LUN to the Mac and let it format and mount it. Or you can use a network storage technology, like AppleShare or NFS. Those work fine, too, and the Power Macs, PowerBooks, and xServes are all shipping with 1000BASE-T, so that's not a problem.
There are any number of ways to ameliorate your so-called "real need" for iSCSI. These work today. Use them.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
2) fibre channel - cost of entry approaching $50k. that adds up to about 50k reasons not to use it on a home machine or small network.
3) network storage - not really a block level disk access technology, is it?
i think the real reason is that very few people are using macs in a data center serving up real applications to lots of clients - the sorta place where a well managed SAN makes sense. now that the draft standard has been finalized (but not ratified), i imagine that you'll see iSCSI becoming more commoditized and more software being made available for more OSs.
note that the windows and linux software packages are only iSCSI initiators - i haven't seen any software based iSCSI targets. this means that even if you did port the code to Darwin you'd still have to have some storage device out there speaking iSCSI to point your mac at.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure... it SOUNDS great to have 5TB of storage in one unit, but just exactly how do you keep current off-site backups? Oh... that's right... you maintain another 5TB unit in another location and run a dedicated T3 between them, yea... THAT'S affordable.
The SAN was a great idea, Fiber Channel was a great idea, but it never reached critical mss, and now distributed network storage is taking over. iSCSI will propbaly make some inroads, but it will never replace a simple device with network ports actining as a server. The latter is cheap, esily understood, easily maintained, provides 95% of the functionality necessary to any IT department, and the clients are built in to every major OS on the market.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:1, Interesting)
iSCSI would change that, and bring the power of SAN-type storage to a much better budget point. It's true, SANs are too limiting and too finicky and way way too expensive. That's by the XRAID looks appealing and would be more appealing if an attached XServe could serve up the disk space as an iSCSI drive.
I'm less interested in seeing the proliferation of iSCSI clients, and much more interested in the proliferation of iSCSI target software. It'll make storage that much more flexible.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
The few that I can think of are disk repair an maintenance utilities.
Running SQL servers over NAT, NFS or any other sort of "soft" mount works just fine.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:1)
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
But the still... exhange is NOT accessing the disk directly, MS just did a brain-dead thing and forces E2K to use the DASD storage stack instead of the one level higher at the "volume" level where total abstraction is possible. One major reason MS did this was to lock people in to their proprietary Microsoft Cluster Server solutions and higher licensing fees for those components. There is no technical reason the E2K must use local storage.
At least that'm my understanding of the state of things.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:1)
Most of the major data centers in the world are using FC interconnects and large storage arrays (5+ TB per array, the bigger (in capacity not physical size) the better generally). The trend is towards putting the data in storage arrays external from the servers, think about blade servers for example.
So in other words toward using storage networks regardless if they are based on FC interconnects, iSCSI, etc.
---
Also not what your point is about T3 and 5TB replicated storage... Many companies do that with far larger amounts of storage using metro fiber not T3s. This is not an Fibre Channel issue but a data desaster recover issue.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:3, Informative)
1) firewire - no managment, just loose drives attached to single machines. might as well suggest a usb memory stick. firewire drives don't make a san.
------
no, firewire drives can be attached to many machines
at the same time. there -are- firewire san solutions out
there right now.
------
2) fibre channel - cost of entry approaching $50k. that adds up to about 50k reasons not to use it on a home machine or small network.
------
no, have a look at Apple's Xraid box. Much cheaper than
$50k.
------
i think the real reason is that very few people are using macs in a data center serving up real applications to lots of clients - the sorta place where a well managed SAN makes sense. now that the draft standard has been finalized (but not ratified), i imagine that you'll see iSCSI becoming more commoditized and more software being made available for more OSs.
------
I think the main reason that macs are doing that job
is that there haven't been any mac capable of doing
that job.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2, Informative)
One of the benefits of iSCSI would be that the very pricey FC Switched network would be unecessary -- you could leverage your LAN.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
Set up NetBoot on the Macs, and export the file system from whereever the hell you want.
It isn't the perfect solution, but it might just get you what you need in the meantime.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:3, Informative)
Re:oh, whatever (Score:1)
If you want 2gig fibre channel it would cost you of course more for the switch (2-3x currently).
Not that it is a cost effect thing to do for small SANs... iSCSI isn't that cheap either but in theory you do save on at least the switch costs (most companies are making iSCSI adapters instead of normal NICs for performance reasons).
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by that, but there is some pretty cool firewire stuff over here that looks to be a bit better than a usb memory stick [micronet.com].
-- james
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
except the max capacity is 720GB and it only supports a maximum of 4 hosts.
hardly a SAN...
Re:oh, whatever (Score:1)
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
Firewire makes the most sense; 128 devices per channel (if one counts "the" controller, 127, but 1394B is peer to peer so let's just call 128 what it is, the number between 127 and 129) and with speeds of 3.2Gbps in limited implementations today, and 1.6Gbps more readily available (and on copper, 3.2 requires fiber at this stage.)
The big missing piece for replacing IDE, SATA, Fiberchannel, and all flavors of SCSI except Ultra320 (which is still faster than the fastest 1394) is 1394-native hard drives. Why is no one making these? It would seem that there is a market, if for no reason other than simply lowering the cost of 1394-attached peripherals.
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
which is why iscsi would actually be nice on a mac, as a software implementation would probably be cheap and would utilize commodity hardware and would be totally accessible for the home user. i manage a number of intel systems attached to an emc SAN at work, and i'd love to be able to implement something similar at home myself, which has me watching the emerging iscsi standard very closely for these same reasons - i just don't have the quid to drop a symmetrix in at home...
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
and, not incidently, i've still yet to have it explained to me why a block level network storage system is a good thing as compared to a network file system (although not NFS particularly), other than for developers who can't wrap their minds around any model that doesn't involve every PC having a "disk".
Re:oh, whatever (Score:1)
Cheap solution, if not fast: (Score:2)
Not the fastest solution, but it will work around the issue.
We're not dead yet! (Score:1, Interesting)
We're actually feeling much better! [infinicon.com]
Re:oh, whatever (Score:2)
this all doesn't even get into the question of whether a block-level network storage system is a good thing. can someone explain to me why it's an improvement over a good network file system? and please don't talk about problems with specific network file systems. we all know NFS sucks.
Why not Linux? (Score:1)
Let me get this right... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let me get this right... (Score:1)
iSCSI has NOTHING to do with Apple. It is just the name of the IP/SCSI protocol...
Whoa. Are you confused. (Score:4, Informative)
As some writing SRP drivers for a living - iSCSI is a protocol that allows you to send SCSI commands between to machines linked by TCP/IP. It doesn't "bridge" IP and SCSI - it's not like you can use it to ping your hard drive.
The intent of iSCSI is to allow people to build SANs without having to shell out actual money for a fibre channel installation.
Re:Whoa. Are you confused. (Score:2)
Ah, yes. Nothing like comparing Apples to Oranges. (Score:2)
Look at Firewire 1.0 vs USB 2.0 - 2.0 has the higher bit rate, but even regular Firewire will give you better throughput.
Re:Let me get this right... (Score:1, Offtopic)
No iSCSI Targets for Linux? (Score:2)
Re:No iSCSI Targets for Linux? (Score:2)
Note: This application is intended for test environments only. It has no warranty or support.
this doesn't engender much confidence in a $1000 adapter.
Re:No iSCSI Targets for Linux? (Score:1)
--Fred
Re:No iSCSI Targets for Linux? (Score:1)
Network Appliance released their iSCSI target system which is qualified with this adapter.
OT? But I gotta know (Score:2)
Re:OT? But I gotta know (Score:1)
I may start on a driver for QLogic's iSCSI cards (Score:1)
Anyway I have been looking at writing or extending the driver to support QLogic's iSCSI capable adapters.