RE: Symmetric vs Asymmetric

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

Paul,

Although I agree a single connection per LUN is inviting, using TCP per LUN
to the same device (controller) is not a fair player.  Each TCP connection
gets a share, but the controller share is large due to increased number of
connections.  Being a controller company, this may seem more than fair.

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> VonStamwitz, Paul
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 11:54 AM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: Symmetric vs Asymmetric
>
>
> > "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
>