But back on the main point, if implementing SCSI services over a
TCP connection is acceptable even though it does not use a kernel
socket, why would it not be acceptable to implement RDMA services
over a TCP connection without using a kernel socket?
Because SCSI doesn't force nasty
From: Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:35:54 +1000
With their RDMA NIC, we'll have TCP/SCTP connections that bypass
netfilter, tc, IPsec, AF_PACKET/tcpdump and the rest of our stack
while at the same time it is using the same IP address as us and
deciding what packets we
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 00:18 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:24:25PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I don't see how that position has changed?
http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/TOE
Well I must say that RDMA over TCP smells very much like TOE.
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 15:35 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:43:23PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
Socket state, and that is one thing I don't see them doing yet.
I wonder what happens when the Linux TCP stack attempts to open a
connection to a remote host when that
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 14:29 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:18:25AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
A PCI device that presents itself as a SCSI controller, but under the
hood is really iSCSI-over-TCP smells like TOE. Running a virtualized
Linux guest on top of a
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 15:35 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:43:23PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
Socket state, and that is one thing I don't see them doing yet.
I wonder what happens when the Linux TCP stack attempts to open a
connection to a remote host when that
Herbert Xu wrote:
Yes, however I think the same argument could be applied to TOE.
With their RDMA NIC, we'll have TCP/SCTP connections that
bypass netfilter, tc, IPsec, AF_PACKET/tcpdump and the rest
of our stack while at the same time it is using the same IP
address as us and deciding
From: Steve Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:54:57 -0500
Doesn't iSCSI have this same issue?
Software iSCSI implementations don't have the issue because
they go through the stack using normal sockets and normal
device send and receive.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Steve Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:54:57 -0500
Doesn't iSCSI have this same issue?
Software iSCSI implementations don't have the issue because
they go through the stack using normal sockets and normal
device send and receive.
But
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 11:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Steve Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:54:57 -0500
Doesn't iSCSI have this same issue?
Software iSCSI implementations don't have the issue because
they go through the stack using normal sockets and normal
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Steve Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:54:57 -0500
Doesn't iSCSI have this same issue?
Software iSCSI implementations don't have the issue because
they go through the stack using normal sockets and normal
device send and
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
But hardware iSCSI implementations, which already exist, do not work
through normal sockets.
No, they work through normal SCSI stack...
Correct.
But they then interface to the network using none of the network stack.
The
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
But hardware iSCSI implementations, which already exist, do not
work through normal sockets.
No, they work through normal SCSI stack...
Correct.
But they then interface to the network using none of
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:24:25PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I don't see how that position has changed?
http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/TOE
Well I must say that RDMA over TCP smells very much like TOE. They've
got an ARP table, a routing table, and presumably a TCP
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:18:25AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
A PCI device that presents itself as a SCSI controller, but under the
hood is really iSCSI-over-TCP smells like TOE. Running a virtualized
Linux guest on top of a proprietary stack [which provides networking
services to guests]
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:18:25AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
A PCI device that presents itself as a SCSI controller, but under the
hood is really iSCSI-over-TCP smells like TOE. Running a virtualized
Linux guest on top of a proprietary stack [which provides networking
From: Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:29:59 +1000
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:18:25AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
A PCI device that presents itself as a SCSI controller, but under the
hood is really iSCSI-over-TCP smells like TOE. Running a virtualized
Linux guest
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:43:23PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
Socket state, and that is one thing I don't see them doing yet.
I wonder what happens when the Linux TCP stack attempts to open a
connection to a remote host when that connection is already open
in the RDMA NIC? For that matter
18 matches
Mail list logo
