netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: dean-list-linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxx (dean gaudet)
Subject: Re: storage over IP (was Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch,
From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:05:45 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: mingo@xxxxxxx (Ingo Molnar), riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rik van Riel), davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller), hch@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101091826200.10428-100000@twinlark.arctic.org> from "dean gaudet" at Jan 09, 2001 06:56:33 PM
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> fixed length headers).  i've never investigated the actual protocols
> though so maybe the solution used was to just push a lot of the detail
> down into the controllers.

The stuff I have access to (MPT fusion) pushes the FC handling down onto the
board. Basically you talk scsi and IP to it (See drivers/message/fusion in
-ac)

> <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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>