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

    RE: iSCSI: No Framing

    Not trying to be obtuse but how does it help if only the NIC vendors
    implement it? (I know you didn't precisely say that)
    It sounds like we may end up with NIC vendors implementing it and storage
    vendors ignoring it or some mix. In the end we will have a fracture in the
    market place and/or all vendors will be forced to implement FIM to satisfy
    customer demands ("my NIC supports FIMs, you don't, things are SLOW, you
    must be at fault", etc.).
    To me it sounds like FIMs needs to be SHOULD/MUST or not in the standard at
    all (moved to a secondary document).
    I personally would like to see FIM (and COWS) moved from the standard to a
    secondary document but that is just my gut level opinion on this issue. I do
    think FIM blurs the layering of TCP/IP, which is not normally desirable.
    Regardless it would be worthwhile for a document describing how to fire
    iSCSI over SCTP or other IP backed transports that are better suited for
    iSCSI style data and high speed/long distance links. (Please excuse my
    ignorance is such drafts already exist)
     Shawn Carl Erickson
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Jim Pinkerton []
    > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:53 AM
    > To: John Hufferd;
    > Cc: Mukund, Shridhar;
    > Subject: RE: iSCSI: No Framing
    > In reviewing the mail alias, and after having many conversations with
    > various folks, I would like to retract my prior opinion on ripping out
    > markers. It appears to me as though _every_ NIC vendor is in 
    > support of
    > markers. 
    > To me the evidence in support of keeping in "Sync and Steering with
    > Fixed Interval Markers" is pretty compelling (now that I've been
    > re-educated). Without going into proprietary issues - how often do NIC
    > vendors agree unanimously on something? Also, a software 
    > implementation
    > of markers is tractable.
    > I have not heard a single NIC vendor in support of COWS, and I
    > personally don't support COWS either. Thus I would recommend that COWS
    > be "ripped out".
    > Jim


Last updated: Tue Feb 05 14:17:56 2002
8647 messages in chronological order