Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
Divy Le Ray wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:02:46 pm David Miller wrote:
From: Divy Le Ray <divy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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 linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
