Re: Concensus Call on Urgent Pointer

[Daniel Smith <dfsmith@almaden.ibm.com>]

"HAAGENS,RANDY (HP-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> 
> Those who accept the framing problem, but disagree with the urgent pointer
> mechanism as a solution, can contribute constructively by (a) exhibiting an
> alternative solution; (b) fully explaining their reservations about use of
> the urgent pointer mechanism.

Costa's TCP RDMA Option was also put forward to solve the framing problem. 
Is that still on the table too?  I actually prefer the urgent pointer as an
interim framer.

My only requirement as far as this topic goes is that iSCSI MUST be able to
run over vanilla TCP.  I.e., it must be able to run over something that is
architecturally just a bidirectional byte stream.  Any things added to that
are performance (flavor) enhancers, are desirable, and highly recommended
(especially chocolate).  But anything in the protocol that ties us to TCP
only, really must be optional in my opinion (and default OFF---i.e., if you
don't specify a flavor, you get vanilla).

Daniel Smith

(Aside to Randy: I accept the framing problem as a minor performance issue*. 
I do not believe iSCSI /needs/ an alternate solution.  I do believe iSCSI
/should/ have an alternate solution.)

* It'll remain minor in my mind until someone publishes measured figures
that demonstrate >10% degradation in a reasonable set up.  Has anybody
measured it?
-- 
IBM Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Road, San Jose, CA 95120-6099, USA
K65B/C2 Phone: +1(408)927-2072 Fax: +1(408)927-3010