netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: storage over IP (was Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch,

To: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dean gaudet <dean-list-linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: storage over IP (was Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch,
From: Cacophonix <cacophonix@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:18:15 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, hch@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
I haven't tracked the IP storage group too closely, but was at the San Diego 
IETF
where there were some interesting debates about this issue. 

There is a write-up at http://ips.pdl.cs.cmu.edu/mail/msg02598.html

Now I'm not sure if I agree with some of the assumptions. And I share your 
concern 
about using multiple tcp streams.

Thoughts?

cheers,
karthik


--- Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips-fcovertcpip-01.txt>
> > show that both use TCP/IP.  TCP/IP has variable length headers (or am i on
> > crack?), which totally complicates the receive path.
> 
> TCP has variable length headers. It also prevents you re-ordering commands
> in the stream which would be beneficial. I've not checked if the draft uses
> multiple TCP streams but then you have scaling questions. 
> 
> Alan
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: storage over IP (was Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch,, Cacophonix <=