Jeff Garzik wrote:
quoted text
> Alan Cox wrote:
> 
>>>better. So for example, I personally suspect that ATA-over-ethernet is way 
>>>better than some crazy SCSI-over-TCP crap, but I'm biased for simple and 
>>>low-level, and against those crazy SCSI people to begin with.
>>
>>Current ATAoE isn't. It can't support NCQ. A variant that did NCQ and IP
>>would probably trash iSCSI for latency if nothing else.
> 
> 
> AoE is truly a thing of beauty.  It has a two/three page RFC (say no more!).
> 
> But quite so...  AoE is limited to MTU size, which really hurts.  Can't 
> really do tagged queueing, etc.
> 
> 
> iSCSI is way, way too complicated. 

I fully agree. From one side, all that complexity is unavoidable for 
case of multiple connections per session, but for the regular case of 
one connection per session it must be a lot simpler.

And now think about iSER, which brings iSCSI on the whole new complexity 
level ;)

quoted text
> It's an Internet protocol designed 
> by storage designers, what do you expect?
> 
> For years I have been hoping that someone will invent a simple protocol 
> (w/ strong auth) that can transit ATA and SCSI commands and responses. 
> Heck, it would be almost trivial if the kernel had a TLS/SSL implementation.
> 
> 	Jeff
--
unsubscribe notice
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/