RE: Symmetric vs Asymmetric

["VonStamwitz, Paul" <paulv@corp.adaptec.com>]

> "VonStamwitz, Paul" wrote:
> > I agree with David. I oppose a two connection minimum.
> 
[Matt Wakeley]
> I disagree. Initial implementations and cheap hardware will 
> have the iSCSI
> implementation in software.  It is easy to do anything in 
> software - open a
> thousand connections, perhaps hundreds of thousands, one per 
> each LU, it
> doesn't care - it just uses up more memory.
> 
> However, for the high performance implementations that will 
> implement iSCSI in
> hardware, doing a function one way sometimes, and another 
> other times, will
> require more hardware and more testing (by both the hardware 
> vendors and the
> value add vendors) to test both functions.
> 
If immediate data on writes is supported, won't you have to support both
functions anyways? If the target (or initiator) chooses which connection to
transfer data, why can't the command/status connection be one of the
choices?

> One connection per LU also has the huge issue of requiring 
> lots of on-hardware
> resources and memory to maintain the hundreds or thousands of 
> connections that
> will be required.... and you want a cost competitive solution?
> 
I stated before that the resource issues preclude mandating a connection per
LU. But if resources allow it, it's not a bad way to operate.

-Paul