|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI - Synch an Steering Appendix - Markers & COWS
I believe there is also a third alternative under consideration which
is a length/key
encoding which is considerably simpler and easier to
implement. The primary
objection to this mechanism is due to its
probabilistic nature, however this
objection seems based more on superstition than on any
analysis showing
that
the overall reliability of the system is in any way compromised
by
the
probabilistic nature.
In any
case, my understanding is that this is also under
consideration
in TSV
working group, so I would hope that IPS will defer to their
choice
and not try to go it alone regarding the decision.
However, I would strongly object to the "SHOULD
implement".
I
believe this should be made a "SHOULD implement" only
after
the benefit of this technique has been demonstrated.
I do
concede that there are one or two vendors who have
view
graphs claiming that "Synch and Steering" layer will allow
them
to build a more cost effective product. However after
doing
a
considerable amount of study on iSCSI HBA design, I have
serious
doubts
about the viability of this approach. I am more than happy
to
be
proven wrong on this, but the operative word is "proven".
I am
bothered that a small minority of implementors want everyone
else
to de-optimize their designs so that they can optimize their
own,
especially when I suspect the approach is technically flawed
to
begin with.
And,
if the "Sync and Steering" approach is successful, it will
quickly
become
a de-facto standard anyway, so I would urge the IETF
to
remain a bit more neutral on this for now.
Thanks for considering my coments, and
best to all as well,
-
Jim
Home Last updated: Wed Dec 26 23:18:02 2001 8206 messages in chronological order |