[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A33633.20800@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:55 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, open-iscsi@...glegroups.com,
rdreier@...co.com, rick.jones2@...com,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Karen Xie <kxie@...lsio.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
michaelc@...wisc.edu, daisyc@...ibm.com, wenxiong@...ibm.com,
bhua@...ibm.com, Dimitrios Michailidis <dm@...lsio.com>,
Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator
Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Divy Le Ray wrote:
>> On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:02:46 pm David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Divy Le Ray <divy@...lsio.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:57:09 -0700
>>>
>>>> In any case, such a stateless solution is not yet designed, whereas
>>>> accelerated iSCSI is available now, from us and other companies.
>>> So, WHAT?!
>>>
>>> There are TOE pieces of crap out there too.
>>
>> Well, there is demand for accerated iscsi out there, which is the
>> driving reason of our driver submission.
>
> I'm, as an iSCSI target developer, strongly voting for hardware iSCSI
> offload. Having possibility of the direct data placement is a *HUGE*
> performance gain.
Well, two responses here:
* no one is arguing against hardware iSCSI offload. Rather, it is a
problem with a specific implementation, one that falsely assumes two
independent TCP stacks can co-exist peacefully on the same IP address
and MAC.
* direct data placement is possible without offloading the entire TCP
stack onto a firmware/chip.
There is plenty of room for hardware iSCSI offload...
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists