SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    iSCSI Autosense Consensus, Connection next steps



    > It looks like we have consensus - but the chairmen have the call.
    
    Indeed we do, and I apologize for the delay, due to an inability to
    get connected.
    
    First, on Autosense, I believe that rough consensus exists for
    iSCSI to require Autosense.  I have seen only one objection;
    If anyone other than Doug Otis disagrees with this, please
    say so on the list.
    
    Second, on connections, I haven't seen enough discussion to call
    consensus, but I am going to try to narrow the option space and
    structure the discussion.  Four models for sessions have been
    proposed:
    
    (1) Symmetric - all connections usable for command and data.
    (2) Asymmetric - single command connection, others are data.
    (3) Split - assign LUN sets to specific connections or pools of
    	connections.
    (4) SCTP - use SCTP's support for multiple connections.
    
    I have only seen one message suggesting/supporting (3) Split, so
    I believe rough consensus exists to not pursue that model
    any further.  If anyone other than Paul von Stamwitz disagrees,
    and believes that the Split model should be pursued, please
    say so on the list with technical rationale.
    
    I haven't seen enough discussion on use of SCTP instead of
    TCP to call consensus.  I am concerned that this list is not
    going to produce a consensus on the issue phrased in that
    fashion (i.e., pick exactly one).  The one point on which there
    does seem to be consensus is that SCTP is a considerably
    younger protocol that TCP, and hence the likely timelines
    to availability of hardware acceleration seem to favor TCP.
    OTOH, this sort of future prediction can easily miss the mark.
    
    I can see two possible ways to make progress in this area:
    - An off-line design team to do an intensive evaluation of SCTP
    	vs. TCP for iSCSI.
    - Recognize the merits of SCTP as well as TCP, plan for both
    	with the anticipation that TCP will be used first.
    The latter makes more sense to me, because it appears to
    be more amenable to consensus, avoids the investment
    of effort in the design team, and avoids having the prospect
    of abandoning TCP hanging over the heads of those engaged
    in TCP-specific work.  The practical implication of proceeding
    in this fashion is that SCTP-friendliness becomes an additional
    criteria to use in evaluating iSCSI design proposals.  Proceeding
    in this fashion is only a proposal at this juncture -- please
    comment on whether this is the right way to proceed (to me
    or on the list).
    
    The specification of sessions for iSCSI over TCP needs to
    proceed, so under the assumption that either the "plan for
    both" path will be pursued, or that we can't wait for the
    design team's conclusions, and hence need to work on TCP
    in case it is selected, I want to summarize the tradeoffs
    between the Symmetric and Asymmetric session models,
    in the aim of simulating more discussions so that we can
    get to consensus.
    
    [X] The Symmetric model imposes additional work on implementations
    	that do not use multiple connections because they will
    	have to implement the command numbering.  The
    	Asymmetric model does not do this.
    [Y] The Asymmetric model makes dealing with a failed control
    	connection more complicated than the symmetric model
    	because agreement between the two sides is required
    	to establish a new control connection (or use an existing
    	data connection for control).
    
    I have seen the discussion of [X] favoring Asymmetric for systems
    that will not support multiple TCP connections per iSCSI session.
    I also note (as an example of applying the SCTP-friendliness
    from above) that [X] favoring Asymmetric also applies to SCTP, as
    there seems to be no point in using multiple SCTP sessions in a
    single iSCSI session.
    
    We need to give the folks working on revising the iSCSI draft some
    direction on this issue in fairly short order, so comments are hereby
    solicited ...
    
    Thanks,
    --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 01:07:35 2001
6315 messages in chronological order