SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE:



    John,
    
    If the intent of the draft-satran-iscsi-01.txt is to eventually modify TCP
    in a significant way, these issues should be addressed ahead of concluding
    such features as RDMA with TCP will become available.  As much of the
    optimization required in the use of TCP for SCSI hinge on such
    modifications, it would appear you have already concluded such modifications
    *will* take place.
    
    Most should agree frame alignment, out of sequence processing, independent
    streams sharing a single control, and zero-copy data handling are deciding
    issues.  Separate TCP buffers to control resources, frame alignment, unique
    TCP APIs are between the lines in this proposal.  Before havoc ensues, there
    is an alternative.  Rather than bending TCP to fit, SCTP has already laid a
    foundation.  As such, *no* transport modifications are required and yet
    customers still get friendly TCP behavior.
    
    Doug
    
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    > John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:08 PM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject:
    >
    >
    > Costa,
    > If you remember way back when we first got together, you had a good RDMA
    > proposal for use with TCP/IP using the various optional fields.  We all
    > seemed to love it at the time.  I for one was disappointed when we dropped
    > it  out of the iSCSI proposal (even as an optional consideration).  The
    > thoughts were, that if we started to push this onto TCP/IP folks, we would
    > spend much time on that and not get the iSCSI stuff done. So it was
    > dropped.
    >
    > I for one would find it useful to bring it back, but only as an optional
    > feature, and only if that did not get in the way of the iSCSI Stuff, since
    > you can see how that has already begin to fill up the current ips
    > reflector.  But I think working it as a side issue, on another reflector,
    > until it is fully baked seems OK to me.
    >
    > Summary:
    > RDMA  --  Yes -- the one you originally had  proposed
    > Optional --Yes
    >
    > .
    > .
    > .
    > John L. Hufferd
    >
    
    

    • References:
      • No Subject
        • From: "John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:01 2001
6315 messages in chronological order