Re: iSCSI ERT: data SACK/replay buffer/"semi-transport"

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

Steph,

You overlook several well documented papers that were referenced on the
list and the perenial issue of midleboxes.

Julo

P.S. - and my personal experience that is I get a corrupted file about 2-4
times a year and I am far from being a heavy user.



Stephen Bailey <steph@cs.uchicago.edu> on 09/04/2001 21:57:19

Please respond to Stephen Bailey <steph@cs.uchicago.edu>

To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  Re: iSCSI ERT: data SACK/replay buffer/"semi-transport"




> Exactly, I've worked in this context (though its been some years now).
> It was true (at one time) that tape had a tractability limit, e.g.,
> a tape backup of a terabyte was out of the question.  Has that changed?

I think this is precisely the point.  Existing, off-the-shelf SCSI
solutions DO NOT presently solve this problem.  Both ||SCSI an FCP
burp the operation on a expectable, O(days) failure rate.  The rate of
adoption for the FCP-2 command recovery feature is overwhelming to the
point that the tape guys have been talking about end-running the
problem with explicitly addressed commands.

What we have running iSCSI on TCP is such a drastic improvement in
what you can expect from your SCSI service that we can eventually
expect a disruptive change.  Trying to engineer it to the point where
its 2^100 times more disruptive, when we don't really know where it's
taking us in the first place is meaningless.

[Warning: repetition ahead]

TCP + link layer error detection is engineered precisely to ensure
reliable data delivery.  It's clear from an engineering stand point
that it is likely (not guaranteed, what is?) to do this quite well.
In spite of much research, it seems like nobody here has come up with
a strong indication that TCP + link layer error detection does NOT do
its job well.  I do not think this is because nobody has ever looked
at the problem.

The lack of concrete information to support the case that TCP + link
layer error detection is inadequate has us chasing our tails.

Given the layer iSCSI occupies in the protocol layer cake, if we don't
try to solve which is presently assigned to a lower layer, it seems
quite comfortable to shim additional checks or recovery, or even a
completely
different transport substrate underneath if we do discover TCP + link
layer error detection is not doing the trick, but it really seems like
folly to engineer based upon an assumption that nobody has done a good
job documenting.

Steph