> left.
>
> Sure, you can eliminate the CPU usage with iSCSI by purchasing an expensive 
> iSCSI offload adapter, but now where is the cost savings?  They go "*poof*", 
> as you observe.  Sure, you save on the FC switch, but a high-end Gig-E switch 
> that can support jumbo frames and traffic shaping ain't exactly chopped

could you please explain why to "save costs" instead of just not making 
costs = not introducing extra architecture, extra protocol, extra new 
network standard?

NFS gets 10MB/s with pentium 100 machine with less than 50% cpu loaded, at 
least with NetBSD, without "intelligent" network adapter.

it will be much less when (as UVM promise) memory-to-memory copy with NFS 
traffic will be eliminated, and i'm sure someone will do it.

i'm talking about such low end (for todays standards) machines like 
pentium 100, with P4 CPU load with 100MB/s NFS shouldn't be noticable.

and there is really rare case there are 100MB/s disk traffic...


anyway would be nice to this ethernet-connected drives to have NFS support 
too not only windows CIFS.