|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: draft 7: remove S bit and Status field from the Data-in PD U?Folks, I might have this all wrong, but it seems to me that we are jumping on the simplification horse from all directions, whether or not it is right, just to say we are trying to simplify. I am afraid that some of this may be at the expense of "at Distance" installations. First, immediate and unsolicited separate Data PDUs are very valuable for situations where the Target is at distance from the Initiator. (A good example is writing to tape. Most tape are only written and hardly ever read. Further, many folks would like to have tapes somewhere else -- at a distance.) The ability not to have to have R2T exchanges over distance is an important feature. Let us not quickly throw that out. Second, thoughts of removing the immediate data seem not to be simplification, since all the information to tie the data to the command is right there with the command. That has got to be easier then matching up separate PDUs of data with the approprate commands. So I am concerned that one of the important strengths of iSCSI -- that being the ability to efficiently operate at distances where Fibre Channel would fear to tread -- is being too quickly put aside. Therefore, if you do not eliminate immediate Data (since that is the most efficient, especially for the smaller data sizes), you are faced with removing unsolicited Data Packets and only permitting R2T -- which has a round trip handshake that is needed to get the data. From a latency standpoint this does not seem good. I can imagine some vendor making a claim that their Storage Unit is the Industry's best "at Distance" storage controller, but it has more memory and might be a bit more expensive then the typical R2T based Storage Units (since they accept unsolicited Data PDUs), but I think that is good. We need vendors to offer those types of solutions. If you do not want unsolicited or immediate Data PDUs, don't accept them at Login. But, they were put into the protocol for a reason, and I hope we continue to have the features that keep iSCSI a distance compatible protocol. . . . John L. Hufferd Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) IBM/SSG San Jose Ca Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403, eFax: (408) 904-4688 Home Office (408) 997-6136 Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:03 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |