| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Ksummit-2005-discuss] Summary of 2005 Kernel Summit Proposed Topics |
| From: | Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:35:15 -0700 |
| Cc: | Alex Aizman <itn780@xxxxxxxxx>, open-iscsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "'jamal'" <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Dmitry Yusupov'" <dmitry_yus@xxxxxxxxx>, "'James Bottomley'" <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Rik van Riel'" <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx, michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx, ksummit-2005-discuss@xxxxxxxxx, "'netdev'" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20050331114122.GL24804@muc.de> |
| References: | <20050330161522.GH32111@g5.random> <20050331114122.GL24804@muc.de> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:41:22PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > It wont work - I can guarantee you that if you add a limit like > "we only support 8 iscsi connections max" then users/customers will raise > hell because it does not fit their networks. HP has been doing that for years (decades?) for parallel SCSI in "High Availability Configuration Guides". It lays out exactly what is and isn't supported. I'm sure other vendors have similar restrictions. As long as the product is still reasonably useful and the vendor provides a solid assurance it will work, such configuration restrictions are quite acceptable. I'm NOT arguing "8 iSCSI connections max" is reasonable or enough. I just arguing some sort of limit is acceptable. grant |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] AX.25 patches for strace, Ralf Baechle DL5RB |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: netif_rx packet dumping, Baruch Even |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Ksummit-2005-discuss] Summary of 2005 Kernel Summit Proposed Topics, Rik van Riel |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [Ksummit-2005-discuss] Summary of 2005 Kernel Summit Proposed Topics, Alex Aizman |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |