|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: multiple sessions b/n a pair of WWUIs.Santosh, There may be lack of synchronization between the two drafts (not unexpected since they are being worked on in parallel). The requirement in name+disc that a given initiator name cannot reuse an ISID for two different sessions comes as a consequence a number of things (which are described in the draft). The gist is that this is needed to provide the correct context for restoration of reservations state (and other nexus state) to a particular nexus after logout/login. In other words, if the session goes down for some reason, the target needs clear context to restore nexus state to a rebuilt session. The only tool it has is uniqueness of Name+ISID combination within its name space. There was a similar requirement in draft...05.txt in 2.11.5 (though that was ambiguous about whether ISIDs are unique within a target across all initiator names or just with respect to a given initiator name). Apparently that requirement is now gone from draft...06.txt! The requirement forces carving up ISID namespaces between iSCSI adapters (session managers) in a given node. They each get their name and a piece of the ISID space from configuration information. You mentioned this yourself in a related reply in this thread to Hari. So, we get multiple sessions between nodes (named things), single sessions between ports (one per ISID+TSID pair) and a framework for restoring necessary nexus state (uniqueness of Name+ISID at the target -- no reuse of ISID). (I think Julo's comment is that he has had time to keep up with the formalization done in N&DT within the last week.) I think/hope this has everything needed. [But I have to admit, this is sort of a hack to get the iSCSI constructs to shoe-horn into the SAM constructs. All of this would have been a lot easier if we hadn't gone to multiple connections per session. iSCSI is the first protocol to allow for such constructs.] Jim Hafner Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 04/25/2001 04:34:39 PM Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, IPS Reflector <ips@ece.cmu.edu> cc: Subject: iSCSI: multiple sessions b/n a pair of WWUIs. > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: Re: iSCSI: session login and ISID > From: julian_satran@il.ibm.com > Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:21:49 +0300 > WWUI can be presented during login phase (2.10.9 is correct and in-line with 1.2.7) Two > sesions can have the same ISID but will have different TSID. The question of whether > more than one session should be allowed between a pair of wuis is under debate. > Julo Julian, There seems to be some disconnect between your comments above and the name-disc draft. As per the name-disc draft Section 2(d) : "There can be only one iSCSI session with a given ISID between an iSCSI Intiator Node and an iSCSI Target Node." The iSCSI [&name-disc] drafts should explicitly state that ISID is uniquely assigned for a given initiator. Similarly, the TSID is uniquely assigned for a given target. On the subject of multiple sessions for a given pair of WWUIs, this MUST be a requirement. iSCSI must allow multiple sessions for a given pair of WWUIs. This is required because single-connection session models would like to setup multiple sessions b/n initiator hosts and multi-ported targets and export the multiple paths to LUs to upper layer wedge drivers like EMC Powerpath, Veritas VxVm, etc. Inability to establish multiple sessions b/n a pair of WWUIs implies iSCSI layer will only export one path to the upper layer wedge drivers, thereby, breaking such applications. This also implies iSCSI would then take on all the responsibilities of providing load balancing and fail-over capabilities and would require the use of multi-connection sessions for that purpose. By allowing multiple sessions for a given WWUI pair, iSCSI layer could achieve equivalent functionality using single connection sessions and would also not break existing wedge drivers. Regards, Santosh
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:52 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |