From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:22:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:21:56 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.141]:42511 "EHLO smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:21:54 -0500 Message-ID: <3E1B3A49.42F6370E@linux-m68k.org> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 21:36:25 +0100 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Hedrick CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux iSCSI Initiator, OpenSource (fwd) (Re: Gauntlet Set NOW!) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Andre Hedrick wrote: > Please continue to think of TCP checksums as valid for a data transport, > you data will be gone soon enough. > > Initiator == Controller > Target == Disk > iSCSI == cable or ribbon > > Please turn off the CRC on your disk drive and see if you still have data. This maybe works as PR, but otherwise it's crap. With a network protocol you have multiple possibilities to increase the reliability. The lower you do it in the network layer the easier is it to put it into hardware and to optimize it and the more generically it's usable. Doing it in the protocol is only the last resort. The iSCSI protocol is a nice protocol - if you ignore all the crap the hardware vendors put in (that stuff only makes sense if you want to produce ultra cheap hardware). bye, Roman