RE: Adding LUN as a field within the command structure.

["VonStamwitz, Paul" <paulv@corp.adaptec.com>]

Doug wrote:
> I vote no.

> If you are making hardware to process TCP, this hardware is able to handle
> more than a few connections.  There will *always* be a port sort operation
> to find the connection and associated state information.  It is not more
> effective to require an additional sort to locate LUN as a second tier of
> state information.

There is another second tier of state information (or is it tertiary?) that
would require sorting, and that is the tag.

> The ability of the client to index the entire volume of
> devices possible is remote and will be a larger constraint.

If you map a group of LUNs to a connection, then the indexing is for that
group only and not the entire volume.

The feedback we received is that a connection/LUN is desirable, but making
it a requirement is too restrictive.

-Paul