On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 01:44:00PM -0500, Joe Landman wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
I think SFP+ 10 Gbit has 0.6usec latency.. ? 10GBase-T is 2.6 usec.
http://www.mellanox.com/pdf/whitepapers/wp_mellanox_en_Arista.pdf
This one is from 2008..
They are reporting 7+ us latency. ConnectX
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:33:53AM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 01:44:00PM -0500, Joe Landman wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
I think SFP+ 10 Gbit has 0.6usec latency.. ? 10GBase-T is 2.6 usec.
http://www.mellanox.com/pdf/whitepapers/wp_mellanox_en_Arista.pdf
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen pa...@iki.fi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 01:44:00PM -0500, Joe Landman wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
I suspect that they really aren't seeing ~1us latencies, but that with
some neat tricks, it appears to be this.
Physically, it isn't
Kindly unsubscribe me from the subscribers list.
Thanks
Suparna
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
open-iscsi group.
To post to this group, send email to open-is...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
When iscsi_eh_cmd_timed_out gets called, we can ask scsi-ml to give us
more time if the cmd is making progress (i.e. if there was some data
transfer since the last timeout).
The problem is that task-last_xfer task-last_timeout are set to
the value of 'jiffies' when allocating the task. If the
Nope, it should be sufficient with the IP address from the initiator.
I tried using CHAP and still no workie :(
Where in the logs can I see if the target is not sending targets?
Thanks for the help!
On Jan 29, 3:50 pm, Mike Christie micha...@cs.wisc.edu wrote:
On 01/27/2010 09:13 AM,
On 02/01/2010 05:14 AM, Erez Zilber wrote:
When iscsi_eh_cmd_timed_out gets called, we can ask scsi-ml to give us
more time if the cmd is making progress (i.e. if there was some data
transfer since the last timeout).
The problem is that task-last_xfer task-last_timeout are set to
the value of
On 02/01/2010 11:52 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 02/01/2010 05:14 AM, Erez Zilber wrote:
When iscsi_eh_cmd_timed_out gets called, we can ask scsi-ml to give us
more time if the cmd is making progress (i.e. if there was some data
transfer since the last timeout).
The problem is that
On 02/01/2010 09:19 AM, TomyOnRails wrote:
Nope, it should be sufficient with the IP address from the initiator.
I tried using CHAP and still no workie :(
Where in the logs can I see if the target is not sending targets?
If iscsiadm does not get any targets it just dot return any targets.
In
On 02/01/2010 12:42 AM, Erez Zilber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Rakesh Ranjanrak...@chelsio.com wrote:
On 01/31/2010 08:04 PM, Erez Zilber wrote:
Hi,
When I build open-iscsi on CentOS 5.4, I get the following errors:
In file included from
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Mike Christie micha...@cs.wisc.edu wrote:
On 02/01/2010 12:42 AM, Erez Zilber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Rakesh Ranjanrak...@chelsio.com wrote:
On 01/31/2010 08:04 PM, Erez Zilber wrote:
Hi,
When I build open-iscsi on CentOS 5.4, I get the
On 02/01/2010 01:45 PM, Erez Zilber wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Mike Christiemicha...@cs.wisc.edu wrote:
On 02/01/2010 12:42 AM, Erez Zilber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Rakesh Ranjanrak...@chelsio.comwrote:
On 01/31/2010 08:04 PM, Erez Zilber wrote:
Hi,
When I
On 02/01/2010 01:21 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 02/01/2010 11:52 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 02/01/2010 05:14 AM, Erez Zilber wrote:
When iscsi_eh_cmd_timed_out gets called, we can ask scsi-ml to give us
more time if the cmd is making progress (i.e. if there was some data
transfer since the
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Mike Christie micha...@cs.wisc.edu wrote:
On 02/01/2010 01:21 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 02/01/2010 11:52 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 02/01/2010 05:14 AM, Erez Zilber wrote:
When iscsi_eh_cmd_timed_out gets called, we can ask scsi-ml to give us
more time if
14 matches
Mail list logo
