[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: iSCSI/iWARP drafts and flow control
On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 07:24 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > I'm not saying we can't just pick a number. But if I understand things, > one advantage of per-session negotiation might be that a target with > fixed > buffering could offer different command windows to initiators that > wanted > different numbers of immediate commands available. For an initiator > that > is more comfortable advancing CmdSN (is happier with a lower number of > credits per CmdSN), a target could divy up its buffers to allow a wider > command window. The cost of per-session negotiation is minor, so I suspect that almost any solid example of an application or scenario that would benefit from a non-standard number of credits would be convincing. But given that the flow control is imposed on the sending side, and that these are rare packets, it isn't that easy to come up with such a scenario. I'm not opposed to the idea, but if a parameter is going to be listed as negotiable in the draft there should be at least a paragraph hinting at why you might want to vary it (even if it was only on the mailing list and doesn't make it into the draft).
Last updated: Tue Aug 19 15:19:30 2003
12825 messages in chronological order