Subject: RE: iSCSI: FirstBurstSize and unsolicited data

From: Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:50:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Eddy Quicksall wrote:

>
> I didn't say to put a requirement on it ... I just said maybe the initiator
> should have done that. What good is a FirstBurstSize of 64k if you can't
> send it?

Ahhh..

To answer the question, nothing, other than the fact it's out of the way.
:-)

Take care,

Bill

---

From: Eddy Quicksall <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:39:35 -0400

Maybe I'm missing something.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Studenmund [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 4:58 PM
To: Eddy Quicksall
Cc: Nandakumar Ramamurthy; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI: FirstBurstSize and unsolicited data

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Eddy Quicksall wrote:

> The initiator should probably reduce FirstBurstSize to 8k.
>
> Although the spec does not seem to mandate this.

Why? I don't see how that helps us (forcing it to be 8k, or
MaxRecvPDUDataSize), because immediate data are bounded by both
FirstBurstSize and MaxRecvPDUDataSize. i.e. we will always have to check
both.

So putting a requirement that FirstBurstSize not be over 8k (or
MaxRecvPDUDataSize) doesn't mean we can skip checking immediate data size
against both FirstBurstSize and MaxRecvPDUDataSize, but it means we would
need to add code to login to check this bounding. How does this help us?

Take care,

Bill