> I'd argue that VM needs to provide a virtual analogue to a SAN switch, just > as you currently provide the VSWITCH for data > networking connectivity. IF that were the case, and VM implemented the SMI > standard interconnects with external switches, > then this problem goes away and we all live happily ever after because the > SAN people connect me once and I look like any > other peer switch in their fabric. Then we can talk about tooling and > automation as peers, not as clients. 8-)
This prompts another look at iSCSI support, methinks. iSCSI support for SFS or BFS would be *very* interesting, especially coupled with VSWITCH. That would mirror the general direction in the small systems world as well (10G Ethernet is making significant inroads into the SAN marketplace; wouldn't it be fun to *beat* the curve rather than follow it -- just once?). It'd also actually justify using SFS/BFS for normal VM use, IMHO, especially since mainline Linux code now supports iSCSI root partitions. It'd be very interesting to move the boot kernel to NSS, and then use iSCSI to get everything else. Would also remove all that zipl mucking about.
