RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

John,

I would appreciate something a bit more specific.  I was not making a
statement about existing products bolted directly into the system
back-plane.  Over a network, less is known.  Again, for your type of
solution, you would be better off making a tunnel for the reasons mentioned.
Discuss the details and not your association.

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hufferd@us.ibm.com [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:06 PM
> To: Douglas Otis
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; Stephen Byan
> Subject: RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections
>
>
>
>
> Doug,
> I do not think that such contentious statements are useful.
>
> If you think that Storage Controllers from EMC and IBM do not
> scale, then I
> think there are a number of Companies that  would radically disagree.
>
> Again, I am asking that we first focus back on the original intent of Host
> to Storage Controllers.
>
> .
> .
> .
> John L. Hufferd
>
> Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
>
>
> "Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net> on 08/11/2000 01:06:44 PM
>
> To:   John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> cc:   "Stephen Byan" <Stephen.Byan@quantum.com>
> Subject:  RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections
>
>
>
> John,
>
> Hard to imagine a Storage Controller unrelated to disk drives.  Are we
> discussing a protocol or your product spec?  Even the lowly IDE interface
> started out as a controller.  The quagmire is the mess created by the
> stateful mid-stream bottleneck you call a controller.  Here you are mixing
> protocols which you abhor.  You are not using a network or protocol
> effectively if you refuse to allow this interface to be suitable at the
> end-point, the device.  The fact that your architecture can not scale
> speaks
> loudly.  If you wish to use this interface at a controller, it should
> assume
> an identical role to a device.
>
> Doug
>