SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: The third alternative



    
    
    I think we are. Julo
    
    "John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM" <hufferd@us.ibm.com> on 02/10/2000 19:39:01
    
    Please respond to "John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>
    
    To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    cc:    (bcc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM)
    Subject:  RE: The third alternative
    
    
    
    
    OK folks,
    I think we have agreement between Julian and David Black (hope,hope, hope).
    
    David, near the end of his note said "...Provide for is fine, as long as
    they're not required."
    
    Julian,
    I think this is all your were after anyway.
    
    So are we all back together now?
    
    .
    .
    .
    John L. Hufferd
    
    
    
    Black_David@emc.com@ece.cmu.edu on 10/02/2000 07:02:31 AM
    
    Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    
    
    To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
    cc:
    Subject:  RE: The third alternative
    
    
    
    > The only argument for SCSI wedge drivers where that they EXIST ALREADY.
    > Pretty weak argument for those building new equipment and for
    > interoperability.
    
    This severely understates the case.  Not only do wedge drivers exist
    already,
    but they do a number of things that an iSCSI standard will never do.  Wedge
    drivers tend to contain logic specific to the device that they're providing
    the
    wedge for - that's inappropriate to standardize, either in IETF or T10.  In
    addition, there are implementation advantages to building wedge drivers
    above the SCSI level - one doesn't have to spread SCSI connection state
    across a failure boundary.
    
    > I think that if we keep ourselves honest we have to either:
    >
    > - provide for multiple connections at the iSCSI level as it is transport
    problem
    >    that other TCP applications are not compelled to handle (I hear
    already
    BUT SCTP
    >   handles it!) and hope that one day the session concept will drift into
    pure transport
    
    Provide for is fine, as long as they're not required.  I would expect to
    see
    significant
    deployment of systems that use single TCP connection per session and handle
    multiple sessions in wedge drivers.  Arguments like the one Bob has made is
    one of the reasons for multiple connections/session to remain OPTIONAL.
    
    > - go to T10 and ask the to standardize wedge drivers!
    
    Just say no!  Exactly what would you want T10 to standardize?
    
    --David
    
    ---------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ---------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:06:55 2001
6315 messages in chronological order