SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    iSCSI: Partial Session Consensus



    In reading the mailing list traffic on Asymmetric
    vs. Symmetric models for multiple TCP connections
    in an iSCSI session, I don't believe that there is
    consensus on the issue phrased in that fashion.
    
    I believe that there is consensus on a couple of
    underlying issues:
    
    (1) An iSCSI session containing a single TCP connection
    	should not be required to use the currently specified
    	iSCSI command reference numbers and sliding window
    	mechanism because TCP will deliver commands in order.
    (2) Use of more than one TCP connection per iSCSI session
    	is OPTIONAL.
    
    The consensus on (1) is rough; if anyone disagrees with
    this for a reason other than wanting to use the Symmetric
    model when an iSCSI session contains multiple TCP connections,
    please say so on the list.  My reading of consensus is
    based on the fact that much of the recent discussion of the
    Asymmetric model has been motivated by single connection
    sessions, whereas essentially all of the recent discussion
    of the Symmetric model seems to have been focussed on
    multiple connection sessions.
    
    The consensus on (2) is sufficiently long standing to be a
    closed issue.  The resolution to the "deadlock" scenarios posted
    by Costa is that the target must not stop reading from the TCP
    connection - SCSI provides means for a target to throw away
    things it can't deal with (e.g., TASK SET FULL), and with
    regard to the ordered command issues, I believe Steve Byan
    is correct when he says:
    
    	I think this is a T10 bug, and iSCSI should defer to T10 to fix it.
    
    In addition to Steve noting that disks tend not to use ordered
    commands, I would note that a single tape device/drive tends
    not to have multiple simultaneous initiators sending commands
    to it, both of which limit the practical impact of this potential
    problem.
    
    I don't see consensus on the model for iSCSI sessions that
    contain multiple TCP connections.  The consensus on (1)
    above for single TCP connection sessions does not take the
    Symmetric model out of consideration for multiple TCP connection
    sessions.  If multiple sessions are negotiated on connection
    establishment, command reference numbers could be added to
    subsequent headers as a result of that successful negotiation.
    In order to make progress, this additional complexity should not
    be used as an argument against the consensus in (1) for single
    connection sessions.
    
    I hope the consensus on (1), or something close to it holds,
    as if it does not, we may have to form an offline design team or
    teams to work on this set of session issues, and that could take
    some time ... meanwhile, discussion of Asymmetric vs.
    Symmetric for multiple connection sessions should continue.
    
    --David
    
    ---------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ---------------------------------------------------
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:21 2001
6315 messages in chronological order