|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI reqmts and Ethernet adaptersDavid, Thanks for the url correction for the document. Although I posted this document 4 days ago, it still has not been published as an I-D. Here is a reference to it until then. http://ips.pdl.cs.cmu.edu/mail/msg04238.html I'll stand by the stated intent of implementing this protocol in hardware. The same is also true for iFCP and FCIP. Page 8 of the requirements document: "(2) Development of Ethernet storage NICs and related driver and protocol software; [NOTE: high-speed applications of iSCSI are expected to require significant portions of the iSCSI/TCP/IP implementation in hardware to achieve the necessary throughput.]" Page 11: "2.3. Framing Framing refers to the addition of information in a header, or the data stream to allow implementations to locate the boundaries of an iSCSI protocol data unit (PDU) within the TCP byte stream. There are two technical requirements driving framing: interfacing needs, and accelerated processing needs. A framing solution that addresses the "interfacing needs" of the iSCSI protocol will facilitate the implementation of a message-based upper layer protocol (iSCSI) on top of an underlying byte streaming protocol (TCP). Since TCP is a reliable transport, this can be accomplished by including a length field in the iSCSI header. Finding the protocol frame assumes that the receiver will parse from the beginning of the TCP data stream, and never make a mistake (lose alignment on packet headers). The other technical requirement for framing, "accelerated processing", stems from the need to handle increasingly higher data rates in the physical media interface. Two needs arise from higher data rates: (1) LAN environment - NIC vendors seek ways to provide "zero-copy" methods of moving data directly from the wire into application buffers. (2) WAN environment- the emergence of high bandwidth, high latency, low bit error rate physical media places huge buffer requirements on the physical interface solutions. First, vendors are producing network processing hardware that offloads network protocols to hardware solutions to achieve higher data rates. The concept of "zero-copy" seeks to store blocks of data in appropriate memory locations (aligned) directly off the wire, even in when data is reordered due to packet loss. This is necessary to drive actual data rates of 10 Gigabits and beyond. Secondly, in order for iSCSI to be successful in the WAN arena it MUST be possible to operate efficiently in high bandwidth, high delay networks. The emergence of multi-gigabit IP networks with latencies in the tens to hundreds of milliseconds presents a challenge. To fill such large pipes, tens of megabytes of outstanding requests from the application are needed. In addition, some protocols potentially require tens of megabytes at the transport layer to deal with buffering for reassembly of data when packets are received out-of-order. Consider that a network pipe at 10 Gbps x 200 msec holds 250 MB. [Assume land-based communication with a spot half way around the world at the equator. Ignore additional distance due to cable routing. Ignore repeater and switching delays; consider only a speed-of-light delay of 5 microsec/km. The circumference of the globe at the equator is approx. 40000 km (round-trip delay must be considered to keep the pipe full). 10 Gb/sec x 40000 km x 5 microsec/km x B / 8b = 250 MB]. In a conventional TCP implementation, loss of a TCP segment means that stream processing MUST stop until that segment is recovered, which takes at least a time of <network round trip> to accomplish. Following the example above, an implementation would be obliged to catch 250 MB of data into an anonymous buffer before resuming stream processing; later, this data would need to be moved to its proper location. Some proponents of iSCSI seek some means of putting data directly where it belongs, and avoiding extra data movement in the case of segment drop. This is a key concept in understanding the debate behind framing methodologies. The framing of the iSCSI protocol impacts both the "interfacing needs" and the "accelerated processing needs", however, while including a length in a header may suffice for the "interfacing needs", it will not serve the "accelerated processing needs". The framing mechanism developed should allow resynchronization of packet boundaries even in the case where a packet is temporarily missing in the incoming data stream." Here IPS is developing a framing protocol that increases the level of error detection. The IPS has made explicit reference to these intentions of having this protocol supported directly in hardware. I will be happy to show how this protocol can be mapped into a common structure which would avail more protocols to this hardware acceleration at the same time ease the transition to SCTP. Although I may upset some with this message, I feel this is a pivotal point in time. Yes, it is possible to support this protocol in software, but not at competitive data rates. Of this you should be clear. At this point in time, with the iSCSI protocol in flux, it is impossible to make hardware for this protocol. With a minor amount of effort, this protocol could be placed into a common format. This becomes an architectural decision. This is a profound decision as it will determine the number of adapters needed by systems to support these various protocols. A decision that will impact the next decade and likely influence networking profoundly. These are not just protocols. You are attempting to redefine the nature of the network adapter. Presently you wish to see this done in a haphazard manner without any coordination by the IETF. This attitude does not reflect the magnitude of this endeavor. Frankly, had the IPS followed the efforts of the sigtran group, there could have been and will be considerable time saved. As it is now, we are readopting multi-connection protocols with unique SACK packet schemes, error handling etc. In other words, re-inventing SCTP. It took them more than 2 years to get SCTP where they are now and it is in suitable form for generic use. If the effort is to use TCP, I can show how that can be done as well by adopting SCTP structures. iSCSI, RDMA, iFCP, and FCIP should not need special devices made as a result of wanting improved error detection, framing and data vectoring. This is not rocket science, but not using a common format makes it an adapter zoo. Doug David Black wrote: > > This requirements document makes it clear there is expectation of > > modifying Ethernet adapters to support this protocol. Should this > > required hardware support be made in a general fashion to allow > > common use among other protocols? > > There are at least two announced iSCSI products and > an open source driver that do not require any > modifications to existing Ethernet adapters, > so such modifications are clearly not a requirement. > > > This hardware requirement is primarily based on two > > requirements, to increase the level of error detection and to allow > > framing. > > Error detection (i.e., CRC or checksum) can be done in > software as Doug has frequently pointed out on this list. > I don't think the statement about IPS and TSVWG pursuing > a common error detection algorithm is correct -- while > I'll defer to the ADs (who are the chairs of TSVWG), I > believe TSVWG has significant interest in an improved > checksum (e.g., Adler-32 based on adding 16-bit quantities > instead of 8-bit), whereas IPS intends to use CRCs. > > Framing is optional and being pursued in a layered fashion > as called for by the WG charter. The instructions in > the WG charter should be sufficient - adding text to the > iSCSI requirements document that introduces otherwise > unneeded dependencies on other protocol specification > efforts (i.e., iFCP, FCIP) is a bad idea. Heaven help > us if we have to submit all the protocol drafts for the > IPS WG to the IESG in one big bundle - at the very least > the IESG will be annoyed, and annoying the IESG has all > sorts of bad side effects ;-). > > I don't see that any change to the iSCSI requirements draft > is needed in either of these areas based on this set of > comments. > > Doug also posted a pointer to the wrong draft - I suspect > he meant to point to draft-otis-tcp-framing-00.txt. > > --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 > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Douglas Otis [SMTP:dotis@sanlight.net] > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:15 PM > > To: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1); Ips Reflector (E-mail) > > Cc: Allison Mankin; David Black; Elizabeth G Rodriguez (Elizabeth); > > Scott Bradner > > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-reqmts-03.txt > > > > Marjorie, > > > > This requirements document makes it clear there is expectation of > > modifying Ethernet adapters to support this protocol. Should this > > required hardware support be made in a general fashion to allow > > common use among other protocols? This hardware requirement is > > primarily based on two requirements, to increase the level of error > > detection and to allow framing. Presently, IETF supports a framing > > protocol that also increases the level of error detection. > > > > Presently TSVWG and IPS are working on a common error detection > > algorithm. In addition, there are two other protocols expecting > > hardware for framing and error detection. This is iFCP and FCIP. > > > > See: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips-fcencapsulation-00.txt > > > It is possible to have all these protocols use the same error detection > > and framing. If this MUST be done using TCP, as this requirement > > document demands, then here is a possible general propose header that > > would allow common use of hardware and a easy transition into SCTP. > > > I will be happy to define a mapping from the present protocols into this > > generalized form. The advantage should be obvious. One Ethernet adapter > > can handle these various protocols without specialized hardware for each. > > > For those wishing to update and route based on encapsulated headers, a > > fix-up field at the end of these headers will allow use of a common error > > scheme using header fix-up. > > > Here is an example of how TCP can be made to look like SCTP. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otis-iscsi-fullack-00.txt > > > > This header could become a TCP option field to allow for negotiation. > > > > P.S. > > One additional question however. > > > > On page 18, > > "The iSCSI protocol document SHOULD NOT define the management > > architecture for iSCSI within the network infrastructure." > > > > What does this mean? > > > > Doug > > > > > > > The IP Storage Working group is chartered with developing > > > comprehensive technology to transport block storage data > > > over IP protocols. This effort includes a protocol to > > > transport the Small Computer Systems Interface (SCSI) > > > protocol over the internet (iSCSI). > > > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-reqmts-03.txt > > >
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:54 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |