|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: draft 7: iSCSI response and SCSI sense dataDavid, It appears to me that generating a SCSI CHECK CONDITION is the right thing for iSCSI to do regardless of T10's eventual decision (ACA/persistent-UA (T10 proposal 00-359r1)/something totally different) on a mechanism to enforce ordering semantics. Robert Elliott pointed out a violation by iSCSI in trying to additionally qualify ASC, ASCQ with its response codes. I suggest that dropping this "additional description" attempt in all these cases is all iSCSI needs to do to meet SAM's expectations. Regards. -- Mallikarjun Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Networked Storage Architecture Network Storage Solutions Organization MS 5668 Hewlett-Packard, Roseville. cbm@rose.hp.com Black_David@emc.com wrote: > > In my lousy Indiana Jones impression - "ACA, why does it > always have to be ACA?" .... > > This whole notion that ACA is a fundamental coordination > mechanism for shared SCSI access to a target is not headed > in a good direction - see the recent message from Ralph Weber > expressing T10's concern that expansion of the usage of ACA is > an invitation to undesirable denial of service possibilities. > I will note that the reservation example that Ralph used in his > message is the sort of thing that can break clustering software, > although I don't know for certain whether there's any existing > clustering software that it does in fact break. > > I think Rob and Jim are correct when they describe the current > 2.4.3 text as being at odds with SAM-2. So, I think: > > - The text in 2.4.3 that is at odds with SAM-2 should come out. > The fact that it was caused by a desire to use ACA makes > it doubly suspect. > - The current mandate for ACA in Section 8.2 exceeds the level > stated in the iSCSI requirements draft and I don't believe > it represents rough consensus of the WG. Support for > ACA should be a "SHOULD", not a "MUST". > - The entire effort to use ACA or something like it to serialize > error conditions for multiple commands in flight has not been > explained well to T10, and what has been explained has not > received a good reception. > > The last bullet has a couple of consequences. First, we should > take out anything else that's crept into iSCSI in support of this > use of ACA. Second, those who want to use ACA or something ACA-like > for this error coordination across multiple commands in flight > should write up a submission to T10 explaining what the problem > is and how ACA or something like it solves the problem. > > I think Ralph is conveying a message from T10 that whatever the > problem iSCSI has, T10 is not inclined to believe that more use > of ACA is NOT the solution. It may take a while to work with T10 > to get the right solution designed, but I'd prefer doing nothing > over force-fitting ACA to a use that T10 doesn't think is appropriate. > When we figure out what the right thing is, we can put in the right > text to describe it. > > Comments? > --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: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 8:01 PM > > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: Re: iSCSI: draft 7: iSCSI response and SCSI sense data > > > > > > > > Elliot, > > > > This issue has some history. After many took the position you are > > advocating > > and I had to drop the check condition all list participants that had > > something to say adopted the current position in order the > > benefit from the > > "serializing" effect of ACA whenever a check condition is > > originated at the > > target and the delivery subsystem is still operational. > > > > Julo > > > > > > "Elliott, Robert" <Robert.Elliott@compaq.com> on 02-08-2001 02:26:57 > > > > Please respond to "Elliott, Robert" <Robert.Elliott@compaq.com> > > > > To: "'ips@ece.cmu.edu'" <ips@ece.cmu.edu> > > cc: > > Subject: iSCSI: draft 7: iSCSI response and SCSI sense data > > > > > > > > > > iSCSI draft 7 section 2.4.3 includes a table relating the iSCSI > > response codes to various CHECK CONDITION status additional > > sense codes: > > > > "0x01 Target Failure > > ASC=0x44 ASCQ=0x00 INTERNAL TARGET FAILURE > > 0x02 Delivery Subsystem Failure > > ASC=0x47 ASCQ=0x03 INFORMATION UNIT CRC ERROR DETECTED > > 0x03 Unsolicited data rejected > > ASC=0x49 ASCQ=0x00 INVALID MESSAGE ERROR > > 0x04 Not enough unsolicited [data] > > ASC=0x49 ASCQ=0x00 INVALID MESSAGE ERROR > > 0x05 SNACK rejected [Command in progress] > > ASC=0x47 ASCQ=0x03 INFORMATION UNIT CRC ERROR DETECTED > > > > As listed above, each defined response code MUST be used (under the > > conditions described in the 'Reason' field), only when the > > corresponding SCSI CHECK CONDITION is signaled, to convey additional > > protocol service information. A SCSI CHECK CONDITION with the ASC > > and ASCQ values as tabulated MUST be signaled by iSCSI targets for > > all the instances in this document referring to usage of one of the > > above defined response codes." > > > > No other SCSI protocol does this. iSCSI seems to be granting the > > SCSI-level status a priority over the iSCSI-level response data. > > I think the other protocols treat the response data as more > > important; if the response data indicates a problem, the SCSI layer > > is considered broken and the SCSI status is undefined. > > > > Forcing the iSCSI layer to fill in those fields seems to break the > > layering model. > > > > I suggest removing the CHECK CONDITION status and additional sense > > code linkage and leave the SCSI status undefined if the iSCSI > > response is nonzero. > > > > This is compatible with SAM-2, which only requires status be returned > > when the service response is TASK COMPLETE (SAM-2 revision 18 > > section 5.3.1): > > "Status shall be sent from the logical unit to the application > > client whenever a command ends with a service response of > > TASK COMPLETE or LINKED COMMAND COMPLETE." > > > > Furthermore, SAM-2 requires that status be ignored when the service > > response indicates an error (SAM-2 revision 18 section 5.1): > > "Status: A one-byte field containing command completion status > > (see 5.3). If the command ends with a service response of > > SERVICE DELIVERY OR TARGET FAILURE, the application client > > shall consider this parameter to be undefined." > > > > I think iSCSI's current wording may violate this rule. > > --- > > Rob Elliott, Compaq Server Storage > > Robert.Elliott@compaq.com > > > > > > > >
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:07 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |