Linux on 390 Port <[email protected]> wrote on 09/11/2006 06:01:40 AM:
> > The real advantage is probably channel speed. > Not if you compare FICON versus FCP on the same physical adapter. In > effect those are both upper layer protocols on top of the same > transport layer. > > > > Best regards, > Pieter Harder > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > tel +31-73-6837133 / +31-6-47272537 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit > http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 >From an FCP ucode perspective: * The layout and handling of the QDIO data structures is more conducive to hiding STI latency. * The fibre channel chipset that we use is from a vendor. It has its own ucode, and there are optimized interfaces for FCP.... Remember, if you look at the storage industry as a whole, FCP is the 800 lb. guerilla. The FCP ucode does take advantage of these optimized interfaces. The IBM storage folks use the same vendor, and there are similar optimized interfaces for FCP targets. Though, I'm not sure of Tuscon's implementation. There are a lot of implementation complexities, and this is not meant to be a complete analysis... Ray Higgs zSeries FCP Development Bld. 706, B24 2455 South Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 (845) 435-8666, T/L 295-8666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
