RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections

[hufferd@us.ibm.com]

Doug,
I do not think that such contentious statements are useful.

If you think that Storage Controllers from EMC and IBM do not scale, then I
think there are a number of Companies that  would radically disagree.

Again, I am asking that we first focus back on the original intent of Host
to Storage Controllers.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd

Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com


"Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net> on 08/11/2000 01:06:44 PM

To:   John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
cc:   "Stephen Byan" <Stephen.Byan@quantum.com>
Subject:  RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections



John,

Hard to imagine a Storage Controller unrelated to disk drives.  Are we
discussing a protocol or your product spec?  Even the lowly IDE interface
started out as a controller.  The quagmire is the mess created by the
stateful mid-stream bottleneck you call a controller.  Here you are mixing
protocols which you abhor.  You are not using a network or protocol
effectively if you refuse to allow this interface to be suitable at the
end-point, the device.  The fact that your architecture can not scale
speaks
loudly.  If you wish to use this interface at a controller, it should
assume
an identical role to a device.

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hufferd@us.ibm.com [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:07 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Cc: Stephen Byan; Douglas Otis
> Subject: RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections
>
> I agree with most of what Stephen says.
>
> Now, do you think that now we can shelve the disk drive discussion and
> focus more on the Storage Controller functions.
>
> When we started all this, I thought that we wanted to FIRST focus on the
> interface to Storage Controllers, in order to avoid the quagmire
> that Fibre
> Channel got into when they tried to handle both controller  (with
Switched
> interfaces) and Disk Interfaces with Loops.
>
> I would like to continue to focus on the Host to Storage Controller
> approach which we were following.  If there is some important item, which
> will prevent its operation on disks, we should be aware of it, but our
> focus should be FIRST on Storage Controllers.  This current Disk
interface
> discussion, seems to be distracting from our goal to insure that the
> proposal works well at the Storage Controller level.
>
> I think that it has been stated several times that the use of a
> Session per
> LUN etc. is within the current iSCSI proposal, and it has been stated a
> number of times by folks that make their living creating Storage
> Controllers that they do not think they can support a protocol that
> REQUIRES a Session per LUN.
>
> So I would like to propose, again, that we get back on track and work
> issues which apply first to Storage Controllers.
>
>
>
> .
> .
> .
> John L. Hufferd
>
> Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> "Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>@ece.cmu.edu on 08/11/2000 11:14:13 AM
>
> Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
>
>
> To:   "Stephen Byan" <Stephen.Byan@quantum.com>, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections
>
>
>
> Today's drives can deliver 320 Mbits/second of data on the outside
> cylinders.  Improvement of the mechanics comes at a high price
> with respect
> to power and cost.  The cost/volume trend takes us to a single disk which
> increases access time as read channel data rate increases.  By offering
> scaled throughput using more drives where each drive's interface
bandwidth
> is restricted with respect to read channel data rates provides a system
> with
> uniform and superior performance.  The advantage of such an approach is
> found with respect to smaller random traffic.  With more devices,
> redundancy
> is easily achieved and parallel access offers a means of performance
> improvement by spreading activity over more devices.  The switch provides
> bandwidth aggregation and is not found in the individual device.
>
> An 8ms access + latency figure in the high cost drives restricts
> the number
> of 'independent' operations that average 64k byte to 100 per second or 52
> Mbit per second.  Such an architecture of 'restricted' drives would scale
> whereas the solicitated burst approach does not.  An independent nexus at
> the LUN is the only design that offers required scaling and configuration
> flexibility.  Keeping up with the read channel is a wasted effort.  In
> time,
> 1 Gbit Ethernet will be the practical solution about the time drives are
1
> inche in size.  Several Fast Ethernet disks combined at a 1 Gbit Ethernet
> client makes sense in cost, performance, capacity, reliability, and
> scalability at this point in time.  The protocol overhead should be
> addressed.  There are substantial improvements to be made to allow this
> innovation using standard adapters.
>
> The power cost to use copper 1 Gbit is high.  Firewire does not scale and
> has a limited reach.  Firewire also places scatter/gather on the drive
> together with direct access.  Doing such over a WAN will impose
> significant
> changes.  Serial ATA is nothing more than IDE through a SERDES.  The read
> channel data rate is like a drug, just say no.  It is hard not to buy
> enough
> dram to allow a proper buffer these days.  Serial ATA removes all
buffers.
> Intel is just usurping any remaining electronics at the cost of
> sensitivity
> to a near by cell phone.  Fewer drives with less electronics.  What a
good
> idea?
>
> Doug
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen Byan
> > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 7:07 AM
> > To: 'ips@ece.cmu.edu'
> > Subject: RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections
> >
> >
> > Stephen Bailey [mailto:steph@cs.uchicago.edu] wrote:
> >
> > > The gating factor for whether iSCSI succeeds is not going to be 200
> > > MB/s instead of 100 MB/s out of a single LUN.
> >
> > In general, I agree. iSCSI can succeed in the high and midrange storage
> > market without link aggregation for a single LUN. These markets can
> afford
> > 10 Gb/s links.
> >
> > As a disk device level interface, iSCSI will not succeed unless
> > it offers at
> > least 2 Gb/s by around 2002, at very low cost for the link. Note that
> even
> > Serial ATA starts at 1.5 Gb/s in 2001. Take a look at the Serial ATA
> speed
> > roadmap on slide 16 of Intel's Serial ATA presentation at WinHEC:
> > http://serialata.org/F9pp.pdf.
> >
> > One can argue the technical merits, but from a marketing
> > viewpoint, the disk
> > industry (both suppliers and customers) has long held the view that
> > interface speeds need to match the media data rate. iSCSI can try
> > to make an
> > argument that slower speeds are technically adequate, but this
> > will increase
> > the barriers to establishing iSCSI as a device interface.
> >
> > > If iSCSI works at ALL in a cost effective way that can be implemented
> > > in a disk, there'll be wild dancing in the streets and you'll all (or
> > > maybe your companies will) be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
> > >
> > > The easier you can make it for the implementors, the more likely it
> > > will succeed.
> >
> > Disk drive companies have implemented much more complex interfaces than
> > iSCSI and TCP - e.g. fibre channel arbitrated loop. And multiple TCP
> > connections don't look very hard to implement. They just look like a
> wart.
> > But I think a necessary one.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Steve
> >
> > Steve Byan
> > <stephen.byan@quantum.com>
> > Design Engineer
> > MS 1-3/E23
> > 333 South Street
> > Shrewsbury, MA 01545
> > (508)770-3414
> > fax: (508)770-2604
> >
>
>
>
>