|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: Symmetric vs Asymmetric> The biggest issue with the "asymmetric" model is that it is NOT "asymmetric" > when there is only 1 TCP connection. When there is only one TCP connection, it > is the "symmetric" model - both commands and data on the same TCP connection. > Then, when there is more than one TCP connection, the behavior is different. > It's always easier to implement something that operates that same way all the > time, than two different behaviors. > > I propose that the asymmetric model mandate at least two TCP connections > (implies that at least one physical connection will have at least two TCP > connections running on it) - one for commands, the other for data. This has > other advantages, like commands not being flow controlled by large transfers of > data. That's not a bug, that's a feature! Having the asymmetric degenerate into symmetric with just one connection is a good thing. For starters it is easier to implement initially or in cheap devices and doesn't have the baggage that a true symmetric design would require but is not needed with one connection. I would oppose mandating two connections minimum, if flow control is a problem then the defacto configuration will be two connections, but lets not require it. Personally I would still prefer one connection per LUN, but the proposed asymmetric model is a good compromise. You could still deploy an implementation with a connection per LUN and not have any significant unnecessary baggage. Not true of the symmetric model. -David
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:29 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |