[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47A79A10.4070706@garzik.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:04:48 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel
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. It's an Internet protocol designed
by storage designers, what do you expect?
For years I have been hoping that someone will invent a simple protocol
(w/ strong auth) that can transit ATA and SCSI commands and responses.
Heck, it would be almost trivial if the kernel had a TLS/SSL implementation.
Jeff
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists