SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    iSCSI - Change - proposal RE: Review of the 07 draft



    
    You have a good point.  We may want to change it to this definition and
    leave it to SCSI (remove from appendix) and add an explicit MaxPDU.
    
    Comments?
    
    Julo
    
    "Binford, Charles" <CBinford@pirus.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 13-08-2001 17:49:10
    
    Please respond to "Binford, Charles" <CBinford@pirus.com>
    
    Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    
    
    To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    cc:
    Subject:  RE: Review of the 07 draft
    
    
    
    I agree with Julian about removing EMDP and FirstBurstSize from iSCSI
    control.  I disagree on MaxBurstSize.
    
    MaxBustSize defines DataPDU length only because we said it does.  We could
    just as easily remove the relationship between DataPDU length and
    MaxBurstSize.  I would prefer we let iSCSI control DataPDU length as it
    does
    today and change the meaning of MaxBurstSize under iSCSI to be more in line
    with what MaxBurstSize means under other SCSI protocols.  As pointed out
    earlier on this thread a generic SCSI mode page utility doesn't/shouldn't
    know/care what the transport it.
    
    The meaning of MaxBurstSize under FCP is largest FC Sequence a target can
    send.  Since an FC class 3 target can send multiple Read data sequences to
    the host with no handshake, the parameter is essentially a don't care for
    reads.  For Writes it effectively governs the largest amount of data a
    target can ask for on an XFER_RDY.
    
    For iSCSI, I'd like to see MaxBurstSize be defined as one of the following:
    - largest amount of data a target can ask for under a single R2T; or
    - ignored.
    
    My problem with the current definition is typical iSCSI DataPDU lengths are
    relatively small (default 8K in the spec.)  The typical MaxBurstSize for
    other protocols is much larger - 64K to 512K.
    
    Charles Binford
    Pirus Networks
    316.315.0382 x222
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
    Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 5:50 PM
    To: Robert Snively
    Cc: 'deva@stargateip.com'; Robert Griswold; Eddy Quicksall; Jim Hafner;
    ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: RE: Review of the 07 draft
    
    
    I think that for regularity it would be wise to remove completely EMDP and
    FirstBurstsize from iSCSI control.
    MaximumBurstSize defines the DataPDU length and is transport related
    (affects iSCSI and less SCSI) and should stay under iSCSI control.
    
    
    Comments?
    
    Julo
    
    Robert Snively <rsnively@Brocade.COM>@ece.cmu.edu on 10-08-2001 10:32:20
    
    Please respond to Robert Snively <rsnively@Brocade.COM>
    
    Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    
    
    To:   "'deva@stargateip.com'" <deva@stargateip.com>, Robert Griswold
          <rgriswold@Crossroads.com>, Eddy Quicksall <ESQuicksall@hotmail.com>,
          Jim Hafner/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS
    cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject:  RE: Review of the 07 draft
    
    
    
    Deva,
    
    Both of you are right if iSCSI sticks to negotiating only
    parameters related with the TCP connections, the iSCSI
    session operational parameters other than EMDP and
    burst length, and iSCSI security parameters.  Then, all
    parameters relating to the normal SCSI activities, including
    EMDP and burst length (which are required for SCSI, not iSCSI,
    buffer management) would be negotiated in the normal
    SCSI manner through the MODE SENSE/SELECT pages and everybody
    would live happily ever after.
    
    Otherwise, and especially with respect to EMDP and burst length,
    I have to agree with Robert.
    
    Bob Snively                        e-mail:    rsnively@brocade.com
    Brocade Communications Systems     phone:  408 487 8135
    1745 Technology Drive
    San Jose, CA 95110
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dev [mailto:deva@stargateip.com]
    Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 5:33 PM
    To: Robert Griswold; Eddy Quicksall; Jim Hafner
    Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: RE: Review of the 07 draft
    
    
    All,
    
    I tend to disagree. The parameters for the iSCSI are negotiated between the
    initiator and target.
    If we allow the parameters to be changed through SCSI Mode select, how will
    this work?
    
    If parameters can be changed through SCSI Mode select then it will apply
    only to Lead only connections.
    
    So, we'll have
    
    a) two methods to change the Lead only parameters common for the entire
    session (one through mode select
    and the other through text parameters)
    b) Just iSCSI text command to change the connection specific parameters.
    
    Does it not add to complexity having multiple ways to change the same
    stuff?
    
    Thanks
    
    Deva
    Platys communications
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    Robert Griswold
    Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 1:36 PM
    To: Eddy Quicksall; Jim Hafner
    Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: RE: Review of the 07 draft
    
    
    Eddy:
    
    I actually have no problem with all mode pages (SCSI and iSCSI) being
    accessible and changeable from standard SCSI mode commands.  My initial
    response to this section was to propose a method that would be
    acceptable to the authors of the iSCSI draft.  If there is desire in the
    group to allow mode pages for the entire target to be manipulated from
    the SCSI level, I think that is a better idea that the one I proposed.
    I would assume that an iSCSI aware SCSI utility would understand the
    iSCSI specific settings, and allow the user to make those changes.  What
    I am really against, is the ability to modify standard SCSI mode page
    settings from text messages, as that could lead to target behavior
    changes outside of the understanding of the SCSI nexus.
    
    To recap your thinking:  Allow iSCSI text messages to modify and read
    iSCSI only mode settings (potentially allowing the reading if SCSI mode
    settings), but allow SCSI mode commands to modify and read all target
    mode settings, including iSCSI settings.  Is that what you are saying.
    If so, I agree.
    
    Bob
    
    Robert Griswold
    Technologist
    Crossroads Systems, Inc.
    512-928-7272
    
     -----Original Message-----
    From:     Eddy Quicksall [mailto:ESQuicksall@hotmail.com]
    Sent:     Thursday, August 09, 2001 2:08 PM
    To:  Robert Griswold; Jim Hafner
    Cc:  ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject:  Re: Review of the 07 draft
    
    I don't like the idea of not letting a user of a SCSI utility be able to
    change some of the parameters for iSCSI. Because they may be relevant to
    him
    and there may not be a user interface to the iSCSI driver. pSCSI sets
    these
    low level parameters via a standard mode set, so why not iSCSI?
    
    It would be best if we could work out something where only the SCSI
    layer
    can set the mode pages. That would solve everything.
    
    Eddy
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Hafner" <hafner@almaden.ibm.com>
    To: "Robert Griswold" <rgriswold@Crossroads.com>
    Cc: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 5:26 PM
    Subject: Re: Review of the 07 draft
    
    > Well, in fact, the draft is supposed to say that MODE_SELECT for the
    > transport-specific mode page will NOT be done via SCSI, only via Text
    > commands.  I read that as saying that from the SCSI layer, all fields
    in
    > these pages are "unchangeable" (even though they can change in the
    iSCSI
    > layer).  Of course, the draft doesn't say whether MODE PARAMETERS HAVE
    > CHANGED unit attentions get thrown up at the SCSI layer when this
    happens
    > at the iSCSI layer.... You later have a clarifying question (Section
    3) on
    > this as well.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jim Hafner
    >
    >
    >
    >
    
    
    
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:01 2001
6315 messages in chronological order