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.
iSCSI isn't even fully standardized! (Score:1, Informative)
iSCSI on Linux... (Score:4, Informative)
http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/
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: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:Not to my knowledge (Score:2, Informative)
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:oh, whatever (Score:3, Informative)
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: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.