|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft...Strange English. In computerese committed is associated usually with: - written successfully to stable media (like in committed to disk) - transaction unit completed (transaction commit) Even in informal English it is used as a negation only in statements like "sorry, I had other (previous) commitments". When left alone it has "positive connotation" (like I am committed to do it). You fellows don't make learning American an easy exercise for us poor non-native speakers -:) On a more serious tone: with controlers and devices busy is usually meant to convey 2 things: - I am busy for a short interval - I will tell you when I get free If you don't intend to tell when you become free don't use busy. You can use occupied (like in "lavatories occupied" - I am in an airplane now -:)) It conveys exactly what you want. Don't take me too serious - I am not good at naming but don't over-commit committed. Julo Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com> on 08/03/2001 16:01:27 Please respond to Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com> To: "Elliott, Robert" <Robert.Elliott@compaq.com> cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu, "'Renato E. Maranon'" <rmaranon@marantinetworks.com>, klein@sanrad.com, "'Tanjore K. Suresh'" <Tanjore.Suresh@sun.com> Subject: Re: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft... Sounds like we are left with "Target Committed", which Renato's new description seems to fit. Any other ideas, or does that seem to work? -- Mark "Elliott, Robert" wrote: > > "Busy" and "Reservation Conflict" are SCSI Status code names defined in > SAM-2; I'd avoid using them for this different purpose. > --- > Robert.Elliott@compaq.com > Compaq Server Storage > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Renato E. Maranon [mailto:rmaranon@marantinetworks.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:12 AM > > To: klein@sanrad.com; 'Tanjore K. Suresh' > > Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: RE: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft... > > > > > > My two cents. I like to suggest "Target Reserved", "Target > > Reservation > > Conflict" or "Target Committed". For this condition to > > occur, the target > > may not be necessarily busy, but just out of resources, or > > can only handle > > one. "Target Busy" seems to imply busy. Building on Mark's > > desciption > > below, something like: > > > > The target has committed resources to one or more > > initiators and cannot > > handle > > another one. The initiator MAY try again later. This can > > be the case > > for simple devices that can handle only one initiator at a time, or > > for a target that has does not have the resources to > > support one more > > initiator. In contrast to the previous examples, this > > rejection is > > temporary. > > > > > > > > Renato Maranon > > Maranti Networks, Inc > > 920 Hillview Court > > Milpitas, Ca 95035 > > Phone: 408-719-9600 x309 > > Fax: 408-719-9631 > > email: rmaranon@marantinetworks.com > > home: www.marantinetworks.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of > > Yaron Klein > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:38 AM > > To: 'Tanjore K. Suresh' > > Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: RE: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft... > > > > > > Tanjore, > > > > Some more comments: > > > > The error statuses codes on Appendix B are not synchronized > > with the main > > draft. We will fix it. > > > > The term "target conflict" was borrowed from HTTP. Mark clarified this > > scenario well. I would like to add that this status enables better > > resolution and knowledge to the target. That is, in those > > cases the target > > can just not open the connection or just reject it like server error. > > However, this will not give indication of the situation as > > described by > > Mark. > > > > Regards, > > > > Yaron > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On > > Behalf Of Mark > > Bakke > > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 6:51 PM > > To: Tanjore K. Suresh > > Cc: kaladhar@us.ibm.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: Re: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft... > > > > > > Tanjore- > > > > Thanks for the feedback. I can comment on #3: > > > > "Tanjore K. Suresh" wrote: > > > 3. Appendix B, B.4.5, > > > Target Conflict 45 doesnot seem to be appropriate. > > > > > > I have not reviewed all the documents yet to give a > > > recommendation and hence cannot give, but feel > > > " Target Conflict" doesnot > > > convey the meaning of the Scenario indicating > > > case of " simple devices that can handle > > one device or > > > the target had reached the limit of its Initiators' > > capacity." > > > > Perhaps we chose the wrong term for this one. How about if call it > > "Target Busy", and slightly re-word it? > > > > The target is busy with another initiator and cannot handle > > another one. The initiator MAY try again later. This can > > be the case > > for simple devices that can handle only one initiator at a time, or > > for a target that has does not have the resources to > > support one more > > initiator. In contrast to the previous examples, this > > rejection is > > temporary. > > > > -- > > Mark A. Bakke > > Cisco Systems > > mbakke@cisco.com > > 763.398.1054 > > -- Mark A. Bakke Cisco Systems mbakke@cisco.com 763.398.1054
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:24 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |