Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 23:12:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 23:12:20 -0500 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:11162 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 23:12:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:20:46 -0600 From: Oliver Xymoron To: Andrew McGregor Cc: Roman Zippel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux iSCSI Initiator, OpenSource (fwd) (Re: Gauntlet Set NOW!) Message-ID: <20030107042045.GA10045@waste.org> References: <3E19B401.7A9E47D5@linux-m68k.org> <17360000.1041899978@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17360000.1041899978@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 952 Lines: 18 On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 01:39:38PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote: > Hmm. The problem here is that there is a nontrivial probability that a > packet can pass both ethernet and TCP checksums and still not be right, > given the gigantic volumes of data that iSCSI is intended to be used with. > Back up a 100 terabyte array and it's more than 1%, back of the envelope. What was the underlying error rate and distribution you assumed? I figure if it were high enough to get to your 1%, you'd have such high retry rates (and resulting throughput loss) that the operator would notice his LAN was broken weeks before said transfer completed. -- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/