Re: iSCSI Plugfest at UNH (misc issues)

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Comments in text - Julo

Sandeep Joshi <sandeepj@research.bell-labs.com> on 23-07-2001 18:30:39

Please respond to Sandeep Joshi <sandeepj@research.bell-labs.com>

To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  Re: iSCSI Plugfest at UNH (misc issues)






Hi Julian,

Some additional items from the plugfest to resolve..

1) Sec 2.3.1 : Untagged tasks.
   If the task attribute in the SCSI Command is "untagged"
   then the initiator task tag should be ignored, correct ?
   Can the draft explicitly state that the initiator must
   set the Initiator Task Tag to 0x'ffffffff if its an
   untagged task.

   Do we assume that the initiator ULP will not issue more than
   one untagged tasks simultaneously ?

+++ In fact iSCSI has no such thing as untagged tasks. It will always use a
tag and it is up to SCSI to distinguish between them. This should not be aa
practical issue since the task identifiers (tagged or not) have to unique
only at the initiator (according to SAM2).
The x'ffffffff" is a reserved value - not to be used by SCSI tasks.

I will "expand" 2.2.2.8 to read:

1.1.1.1   Initiator Task Tag

   The initiator assigns a Task Tag to each iSCSI task that it issues.
   While a task exists, this tag MUST uniquely identify it session-wide.
   The initiator task tag may be used by SCSI too as part of the SCSI task
   identifier as the time span during which an iSCSI initiator task tag has
   to be unique extends over the time span during which a SCSI task tag has
   to be unique.  However, the iSCSI Initiator Task Tag has to exist and be
   unique even for untagged SCSI commands.

+++

2) ExpCmdSN
   What are the semantics of something like this.. the
   target does not increase the expCmdSN but keeps sending
   the status (SCSI response) for commands after the expCmdSN ?
   Clearly, the target has received and executed the commands
   (in cmdSN order).

   Hence, the expCmdSN in a SCSI response must not be less
   than the cmdSN of the original command (for which response
   is being received).

   This seems like a valid property which could be mandated
   and checked, to allow efficient initiator implementations.
   The target eventually suffers but the standard could
   prevent such targets from being deployed :-)

+++

Interesting proposal. Has some academic weaknesses however. We assume that
CmdSN has no significance after delivery.
Assume that you have a good target and a very long lived command - outlives
a wrap around of CmdSN!

How would you distinguish the status of this command carying a low ExpCmdSN
from your case?

I will change the following in 1.2.2.1


       - CmdSN - the current command Sequence Number advanced by 1 on each
      command shipped except for commands marked for immediate delivery.
       - ExpCmdSN - the next expected command by the target. The target
      acknowledges all commands up to but not including this number and the
      initiator has to mark the acknowledged commands as such as soon as a
      PDU with the corresponding ExpCmdSN is received. The target iSCSI
      layer sets the ExpCmdSN to the largest non-immediate CmdSN that it is
      able to deliver for execution plus 1 (no holes in the CmdSN
      sequence).
       - MaxCmdSN - the maximum number to be shipped. The queuing capacity
      of the receiving iSCSI layer is MaxCmdSN - ExpCmdSN + 1.




And later - at the end of 1.2.2.1

   A target MUST NOT issue a command response or DATA-In PDU with status
   before acknowledging the command.


As with many other initiator deteced errors - the initiator has to decide
what to do with such an error (logout, rest etc.)

++++


3) Sending status in read PDU
   Since quite a few initiators did not support this,
   this feature had to be enabled or disabled frequently at
   the target.

   Either we should make it mandatory to implement (at initiator)
   or we should add a key "SendStatusInReadPDU=yes/no".  The first
   option seems simpler.

+++ Anything that is not optional is mandatory to implement
to make it unequivocal I will add to 2.7:

   Status can accompany the last Data-in PDU if the command did not end
   with an exception.  Presence of status (and of a residual count) is
   signaled though the S flag bit.  Although targets may choose to send
   even non-exception status in separate responses initiators MUST support
   non-exception status in Data-In PDUs.

+++
thanks
-Sandeep