From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:01:47 +0300 Message-ID: <47A8B29B.8050406@vlnb.net> References: <1201639331.3069.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47A05CBD.5050803@vlnb.net> <47A7049A.9000105@vlnb.net> <1202139015.3096.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47A73C86.3060604@vlnb.net> <1202144767.3096.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47A7488B.4080000@vlnb.net> <1202145901.3096.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1202151989.11265.576.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20080204224314.113afe7b@core> <47A79A10.4070706@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47A79A10.4070706@garzik.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Alan Cox , Mike Christie , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , James Bottomley , scst-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , FUJITA Tomonori List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > >>>better. So for example, I personally suspect that ATA-over-ethernet is way >>>better than some crazy SCSI-over-TCP crap, but I'm biased for simple and >>>low-level, and against those crazy SCSI people to begin with. >> >>Current ATAoE isn't. It can't support NCQ. A variant that did NCQ and IP >>would probably trash iSCSI for latency if nothing else. > > > AoE is truly a thing of beauty. It has a two/three page RFC (say no more!). > > But quite so... AoE is limited to MTU size, which really hurts. Can't > really do tagged queueing, etc. > > > iSCSI is way, way too complicated. I fully agree. From one side, all that complexity is unavoidable for case of multiple connections per session, but for the regular case of one connection per session it must be a lot simpler. And now think about iSER, which brings iSCSI on the whole new complexity level ;) > It's an Internet protocol designed > by storage designers, what do you expect? > > For years I have been hoping that someone will invent a simple protocol > (w/ strong auth) that can transit ATA and SCSI commands and responses. > Heck, it would be almost trivial if the kernel had a TLS/SSL implementation. > > Jeff