|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: symmetric/asymmetric & "Wedge" driversJulian, As I understand the Asymmetric proposal, it is an extension to the Single Connection per Session (SC/S). The extension to SC/S permits data to be sent on other TCP/IP connections (which may or may not be on other NICs/HBAs). This means, I think, that if the Asymmetric proposal is accepted, that the whole discussion we had over whether or not we need the Wedge Drivers to perform "Alternate Path" retry, is moot. Wedge Drivers, I believe, will be needed to do that function if Asymmetric is chosen, since we have no construct, other then Session, to identify "Alternate Retry Paths". And in this case, the Session only identifies other Data Channels, not other Alternate Command Paths, leaving no way to know what the Alternate Retry Path might be. Is my analyses correct? . . . John L. Hufferd julian_satran@il.ibm.com@ece.cmu.edu on 08/29/2000 07:53:58 AM Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu To: ips@ece.cmu.edu cc: Subject: RE: iSCSI: "Wedge" drivers David, I understand 3 and I somehow expected it. If I would have to reimplement this under iSCSI I would choose a plug-in in iSCSI to do it (a policy module) and iSCSI would clearly support such a construct (and make it also future-proof). I have some trouble with 1 and 2. In whatever design you choose at the array level you have to have some sharing as some commands are targeted to a LU and all it's queues (i.e. separation per initiator is never complete if you take SAM seriously). However some design might choose to share only for those commands - and talking to you with you chair hat off - I don't think that you are with one of those (:- I am no sure I understand 4 either - if the array does no "sense" the fail over. Now talking to you with your hat on - we are ready to get to the drafting - but I feel that we are still left with the symmetric/asymmetric dilemma and I would appreciate input: The asymmetric solution is simpler for those using a single connection. Is there any serious drawback? Dear Colleagues - Please give us feedback. We can choose only one solution? Which is the right one? Julo Black_David@emc.com on 29/08/2000 16:26:49 Please respond to Black_David@emc.com To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu cc: Subject: RE: iSCSI: "Wedge" drivers > While many of you keep telling me that wedge drivers won't go away nobody > gave one good example to support that assertion. With my co-chair hat off, here are four, two from the mail exchange: (1) Sharing SCSI state across array interface processors involves some work. Use of multiple SCSI connections and wedge drivers for fault tolerance and load balancing will persist in systems that choose not to follow that implementation path. (2) If iSCSI is implemented in hardware, so that a system has multiple iSCSI HBAs rather than multiple NICs with a common iSCSI software stack, multiple SCSI connections and wedge drivers are again the path of least resistance to fault tolerance and load balancing. And two new ones: (3) Naive greedy load balancing is not optimal. Significant improvements are possible based on an understanding of how the storage behaves. PowerPath contains Symmetrix-specific logic that does this, and I don't think that's appropriate for standardization. (4) Some arrays need additional support for fail-over. Clariion uses an active fail-over architecture in which the array must be instructed to fail-over, and the fail-over occurs across separate SCSI connections. I don't think that the Clariion-specific logic that does this is appropriate for standardization. As I wrote earlier, I have no problem with specifying a session abstraction for iSCSI, but it won't eliminate wedge drivers. With my co-chair hat on, the current consensus is to specify a session abstraction and review the result. --David --------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140, FAX: +1 (508) 497-6909 black_david@emc.com Cellular: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:40 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |