linux-kernel - Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:51:28 -0800
From:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 16:48 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 22:01 +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Alan Cox wrote:
> > > 
> > >>>better. So for example, I personally suspect that ATA-over-ethernet is way 
> > >>>better than some crazy SCSI-over-TCP crap, but I'm biased for simple and 
> > >>>low-level, and against those crazy SCSI people to begin with.
> > >>
> > >>Current ATAoE isn't. It can't support NCQ. A variant that did NCQ and IP
> > >>would probably trash iSCSI for latency if nothing else.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > AoE is truly a thing of beauty.  It has a two/three page RFC (say no more!).
> > > 
> > > But quite so...  AoE is limited to MTU size, which really hurts.  Can't 
> > > really do tagged queueing, etc.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > iSCSI is way, way too complicated. 
> > 
> > I fully agree. From one side, all that complexity is unavoidable for 
> > case of multiple connections per session, but for the regular case of 
> > one connection per session it must be a lot simpler.
> > 
> > And now think about iSER, which brings iSCSI on the whole new complexity 
> > level ;)
> 
> Actually, the iSER protocol wire protocol itself is quite simple,
> because it builds on iSCSI and IPS fundamentals, and because traditional
> iSCSI's recovery logic for CRC failures (and hence alot of
> acknowledgement sequence PDUs that go missing, etc) and the RDMA
> Capable
> Protocol (RCaP).

this should be:

.. and instead the RDMA Capacle Protocol (RCaP) provides the 32-bit or
greater data integrity.

--nab

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/