|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI Autosense Consensus, Connection next stepsOk, explain something to me... csapuntz@cisco.com wrote: > > Asymmetric connections may be the way to go. > > Let's look at characteristics of control vs. data: > > * iSCSI control > - low bandwidth (handled on a CPU) > - should generally be processed in FIFO order > - complex state machines (probably software implemented) > - flow control nice > - doesn't need to end up in any special buffers > (can be processed in-place) > > * iSCSI data/ready to transmit (rtt) > - potentially high bandwidth > - with appropriate headers, segments can be > processed entirely out-of-order > - simple data transfer state machine > - no flow control on data needed, just congestion control > - rtt's need to be flow-controlled, but > that can be done with a simple credit mechanism > - data needs to end up in special buffers (e.g. buffer cache) > I understand how you will obtain all of the above with two TCP connecions. I can even support this, considering the 1 for control is "low bandwidth" (note: I can't support N data connections.. only 1). But my question is to the Data connection. How do you get "no flow control on data needed, just congestion control" on a TCP connection? > The processing requirements of the data and control seem quite > asymmetric. Mixing them on one TCP channel makes separating out the > data and control more difficult. > > Conversely, by putting control and data on separate TCP connections, > you can use the flow label (IP addresses, TCP ports) to determine > whether to route this along the control or data path in your machine. > > So, I think there is value in the proposal that we use 1 control > connection and up to n separate dedicated data/RTT connections. No I can NOT agree with N seperate dedicated data/RTT connections. I think you should go look at Sally's email that was posted here earlier... here it is... ************************************************************************** Franco Travostino wrote: > > A bit of Related Work ... On the forever-young 1 vs. N TCP connections > subject, you may be interested in the results shown in the '97 "An > Application-Level Solution to TCP's Satellite Inefficiencies" paper > (available at http://jarok.cs.ohiou.edu/projects/satellite/) and on Sally > Floyd's comment hereafter. The intersection with satellite links is quite > accidental, and the arguments/results apply above and beyond satellite links. > > -franco > > >From majordom@ISI.EDU Fri Dec 6 23:05:58 1996 > >To: fred@cisco.com (Fred Baker) > >Cc: end2end-tf@isi.edu > >Subject: Re: Related paper/re:satellites > >Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 23:05:47 PST > >From: Sally Floyd <floyd@ee.lbl.gov> > >Sender: owner-end2end-tf@ISI.EDU > >Precedence: bulk > >Content-Length: 2309 > >X-Lines: 44 > > > >Fred - > > > >>You might be interested in reviewing this paper, which is what I'm > >>discussing with Karen Hansen, Dan Shell, and the folks from Comsat. It > >>relates to some TCP/Satellite work being done at NASA Lewis Research > >>Center. > > > >Basically (from a quick read), the paper, on "An Application-Level > >Solution to TCP's Satellite Inefficiencies", recommends breaking a > >single TCP connection into multiple connections at the > >application level, to increase throughput on satellite circuits. > >It is not too surprising that this increases the TCP throughput, but it > >is still not a good idea. For a single TCP connection, a single packet > >drop results in the throughput for that connection being cut by half, > >and then increased by roughly one packet per RTT. For a TCP connection > >that has instead been separated into N different TCP connections, a > >single packet drop results in one of the N connections, receiving > >1/N-th of the total bandwidth, having its throughput cut in half. Thus > >the bandwidth of the aggregate connection has its bandwidth reduced to > >(1 - 1/(2N))-th of its former bandwidth - that is, the larger the value > >for N, the smaller the aggregate bandwidth is cut. And then, because > >each TCP connection continues to increase its congestion window by one > >packet per RTT, for those TCP connections that have not yet reached the > >receiver's advertised window, the aggregate TCP connections together > >increase their bandwidth by up to N packets per RTT. > > > >Summarizing, splitting a TCP connection into N separate connections > >simply increases the aggressiveness of the TCP congestion control. > >Meaning that this TCP is now more likely to "steal" bandwidth from > >other TCP connections in times of congestion. And increasing the > >aggressiveness of the TCP congestion control too far (by choosing N too > >large) is counterproductive even for the aggregate TCP connection, as > >the paper shows. > > > >I would suggest that this is exactly the kind of development for which > >[RED is needed]. > > > >- Sally > > > > > > ****************************************************************** In my mind it will be a hard sell to the IESG to ask for multiple connections for high-bandwidth data? Scott/Allision any comments on this? > > The symmetric, connection allegiance case was developed when we were > smoking some really good stuff in Haifa. It really addresses a > corner case: minimizing the communication needs between NICs in systems > that will stripe requests across NICs. > > However, somewhere along the line, we forgot to optimize for the > single NIC case. > > ------------------ > > Also using a separate TCP connections may allow us to migrate one > day to an architecture where a different node in the IP network > returns the actual data from a SCSI READ! > > Client <---- iSCSI Control ----> Storage Controller <---- TBD ----> Disk array > ^ ^ > +-------------------------------iSCSI Data protocol -----------------+ > > -Costa -- Randall R. Stewart randall@stewart.chicago.il.us or rrs@cisco.com 815-342-5222 (cell) 815-477-2127 (work)
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:34 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |