|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iscsi: rev 05 2.5.1 requires ACA supportDavid, I interpreted Doug's idea different. I heard him saying we should give the task management function a sequence number, but the targets iSCSI layer pass it up as if it were immediate. Additionally, the iSCSI layer would be aware of, and watch for late coming I/Os on other connections using the knowledge of the CmdSN in the task management function. This idea can only work if the iSCSI layer is knowledgeable of the semantics of the task management function and has enough smarts to evaluate whether or not the late comer was effected by the task management function. I believe this puts more intelligence at the iSCSI layer than is necessary. I also don't think the iSCSI layer on the initiator side should/can have the intelligence to know whether a given task management function should be delivered with or without the immediate option as defined today. The prompt delivery, yet correct ordering of task management functions is a problem specifically tied to the way we have architected iSCSI with the multiple connections under one session. I believe the iSCSI should be responsible for solving this problem without any help knowledge from layers above. In response to my proposal to send the task management function on all connections to solve this problem, David Black had the response below (in another email, but copied here). My responses are in-line, marked with [cb]. ====From David Black======== The target still has to receive the task management command on the slow connection, or time out and close the slow connection before it can execute the task management command. This is vulnerable to the "arbitrary delay by some unrelated command" version of problem 2). [cb] I propose we have a relatively short timer defined for this. The target starts it as soon as it receives the first task management function. This puts a known upper bound on the problem. [cb] If both problems need to be solved, the task management command may have to be sent at least twice when there are multiple connections active: - With immediate delivery to take effect as soon as possible. - With ordered delivery to ensure that everything it is supposed to affect has made it to the target. My reaction to this entire area that having iSCSI do any duplication of task management commands transparently to SCSI is introducing a bunch of extra complexity that doesn't seem to deliver a lot of extra value. [cb]I agree, we don't want the iSCSI layer to duplicate task management commands as suggested here. That is not what I'm proposing. I'm saying send the task management function down all connections to synchronize the session, but the target SCSI layer only sees a single task movement function. [cb] Any user of iSCSI already has to decide between immediate and ordered delivery, and the less we muck with the task management commands, the more likely the user will be able to obtain desired/expected/understood behavior. [cb] Regardless of whether or not commands are being sent with ordered or immediate delivery we still have the problem of the task management function delivery. You need to know for sure which issued commands were caught by the task management function, yet you can't wait for an *unspecified* timer to pop on a slow connection. [cb] Charles Binford Blue Spruce Networks office: (316) 315-0382 / cell: (316) 210-6404 e-fax: (509) 756-4425 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Black_David@emc.com Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 6:40 PM To: dotis@sanlight.net; ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: iscsi: rev 05 2.5.1 requires ACA support > Even with management commands, position within the command stream is > assumed. Should there be commands sent without an ability to verify > relative position and with the potential for excessive skews between > connections, the use of a zero seems clumsy. It could apply to command not > yet received on different connections. Even though a command may have a > sequence value, it could be 'Marked' for immediate use without strict > adherence to sequence. The sequence value could be used to filter late > comers, perhaps the cause for the management command in the first place. > The task attribute could be used to understand if there is a need for > immediate application or an iSCSI specific bit if that is too difficult. This sounds like what ordered delivery is currently specified to do, possibly coupled with a note to implementers suggesting that task management commands be executed promptly after delivery to SCSI. An example of a scenario that may work with immediate delivery ("use of a zero" above) is one in which some person or piece of software has determined or suspects that something undesirable is going on in/at the target device and wants it stopped NOW!!! (e.g., "What on earth is that tape robot doing???"). --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 01:05:17 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |