Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator

Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:

Divy Le Ray wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:02:46 pm David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Divy Le Ray <redacted>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:57:09 -0700

quoted

In any case, such a stateless solution is not yet designed, whereas
accelerated iSCSI is available now, from us and other companies.

So, WHAT?!

There are TOE pieces of crap out there too.

Well, there is demand for accerated iscsi out there, which is the 
driving reason of our driver submission. 

I'm, as an iSCSI target developer, strongly voting for hardware iSCSI 
offload. Having possibility of the direct data placement is a *HUGE* 
performance gain.

Well, two responses here:

* no one is arguing against hardware iSCSI offload.  Rather, it is a 
problem with a specific implementation, one that falsely assumes two 
independent TCP stacks can co-exist peacefully on the same IP address 
and MAC.

* direct data placement is possible without offloading the entire TCP 
stack onto a firmware/chip.

There is plenty of room for hardware iSCSI offload...

	Jeff