Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756790AbYHMTa4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:30:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752654AbYHMTaS (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:30:18 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:58767 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752464AbYHMTaQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:30:16 -0400 Message-ID: <48A33633.20800@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:55 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin CC: David Miller , open-iscsi@googlegroups.com, rdreier@cisco.com, rick.jones2@hp.com, Steve Wise , Karen Xie , netdev@vger.kernel.org, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, daisyc@us.ibm.com, wenxiong@us.ibm.com, bhua@us.ibm.com, Dimitrios Michailidis , Casey Leedom , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator References: <200808121457.11356.divy@chelsio.com> <20080812.150246.42068558.davem@davemloft.net> <200808121521.10101.divy@chelsio.com> <48A32976.7060504@vlnb.net> In-Reply-To: <48A32976.7060504@vlnb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.2.5 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1351 Lines: 39 Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > Divy Le Ray wrote: >> On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:02:46 pm David Miller wrote: >>> From: Divy Le Ray >>> 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-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/