RE: not every song

[Robert Snively <rsnively@Brocade.COM>]

Doug,

Differentiate for me if you would please:

	One PDU with two IUs contained:
		Segmented and transmitted across a link.

	Two consecutive PDUs with one IU contained in each:
		(Maybe with the first not requiring segmentation)
		and transmitted consecutively across a link.

Since FCP could not find any performance or latency differences, I
would expect that iSCSI would find similar characteristics.

Bob

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Douglas Otis [mailto:dotis@sanlight.net]
>  Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 1:50 PM
>  To: Robert Snively; John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM; ips@ece.cmu.edu
>  Subject: RE: not every song
>  
>  
>  Bob,
>  
>  I am not sure I understand the point.  Not that I would advocate such
>  modifications, but should these points become a deciding 
>  factor, the service
>  parameter for such negotiations has already been defined 
>  within FCP-2 as of
>  recently.  Such a decision for removal may have been premature should
>  network latency argue for Word 3, bit 3 being set.
>  
>  Again, I am agnostic about this issue, but I would rather 
>  stick with FCP
>  structures.  Should there be attempts to provide zero copy, 
>  adopting FCP
>  structures permit a greater reliance on these structure's stability.
>  
>  Doug
>  
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Robert Snively [mailto:rsnively@Brocade.COM]
>  > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 12:37 PM
>  > To: 'Douglas Otis'; John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM; ips@ece.cmu.edu
>  > Subject: RE: not every song
>  >
>  >
>  > >  FCP
>  > >  offers WRITE-DATA and READ-RESPONSE structures if desired.
>  >
>  > Reminder:
>  >
>  > No, it doesn't.  FCP-2 (the new and improved FCP) took the
>  > function out because nobody implemented it and it did not make
>  > sense.  It would have required additional recovery mechanisms and
>  > it did not improve performance.
>  >
>  > Bob
>  >
>  
>