Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
quoted text
> Divy Le Ray wrote:
>> On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:02:46 pm David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Divy Le Ray <divy@chelsio.com>
>>> 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


--
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/