On 1/12/2015 2:56 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 01/11/15 10:40, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
I would say there is no need for specific coordination from iSCSI PoV.
This is exactly what flow steering is designed for. As I see it, in
order to get the TX/RX to match rings, the user can attach 5-tuple
On 1/12/2015 10:05 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 01/11/2015 03:23 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 1/9/2015 8:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
SNIP
Session wide command sequence number synchronization isn't something to
be removed as part of the MQ work. It's a iSCSI/iSER protocol
requirement.
On 01/11/15 10:40, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
I would say there is no need for specific coordination from iSCSI PoV.
This is exactly what flow steering is designed for. As I see it, in
order to get the TX/RX to match rings, the user can attach 5-tuple rules
(using standard ethtool) to steer packets
On 01/11/2015 03:40 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 1/9/2015 10:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 01/09/2015 12:28 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22
On 01/11/2015 03:23 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 1/9/2015 8:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
SNIP
Session wide command sequence number synchronization isn't something to
be removed as part of the MQ work. It's a iSCSI/iSER protocol
requirement.
That is, the expected + maximum sequence
On 1/9/2015 10:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 01/09/2015 12:28 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu,
On 1/9/2015 8:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
SNIP
Session wide command sequence number synchronization isn't something to
be removed as part of the MQ work. It's a iSCSI/iSER protocol
requirement.
That is, the expected + maximum sequence numbers are returned as part of
every response PDU,
On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800,
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 19:28 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
[...]
I think you are assuming we are leaving the iscsi code as it is today.
For the non-MCS mq session per CPU design, we would be allocating and
binding the session and its resources to specific CPUs. They would only
be
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:16
On 01/09/2015 12:28 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:16 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
SNIP
The point is that a simple session wide
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 21:03 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:16 -0800, Nicholas
13 matches
Mail list logo
