Initiator future

[velis]

I understand that you guys discontinued the initiator. I suppose in favour of MS built-in initiator?

Well, I'm a home user and I'm considering iSCSI to centralise storage. However, I have grown accustomed to SSD disks and would like to have SSD-like performance even on remote drives.
I have been testing iSCSI for a while now and while performance is far from abysmal, it is still orders of magnitude slower than SSD.

Question:
You already support caching for server side. Would you be willing to consider continuing initiator development in order to build-in the cache logic?

It is always preferable to have both ends from the same provider and your VirtualSAN is looking really fine so far.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jure

[anton (staff)]

Yes, forced to replace our own with MSFT initiator... Long list of reasons.

Technically you don't need caching being monolithic part of a complex driver: it can be a stand-alone component in the storage stack working with a referenced MSFT initiator for example.

While in theory we could do that I doubt we will: I don't see this a sellable product and NT kerne developers time is expensive... Sorry about that!

I understand that you guys discontinued the initiator. I suppose in favour of MS built-in initiator?

Well, I'm a home user and I'm considering iSCSI to centralise storage. However, I have grown accustomed to SSD disks and would like to have SSD-like performance even on remote drives.
I have been testing iSCSI for a while now and while performance is far from abysmal, it is still orders of magnitude slower than SSD.

Question:
You already support caching for server side. Would you be willing to consider continuing initiator development in order to build-in the cache logic?

It is always preferable to have both ends from the same provider and your VirtualSAN is looking really fine so far.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jure