|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSCSI: RE: Target record not to span PDUs?Julian, I'm not sure the problem case as stated is syntactically correct; maybe it has to do with my interpretation of book marks. As stated, the sequence looks like: [Begin data segment] ... TargetName=I.got.chopped.4096 TargetAddress=10.1.1.45 [End data segment] My understanding of bookmark is that the packet would look like: [Begin data segment] ... TargetName=<incomplete target name> [End data segment] Where the next message would simply be concatenated to the previous text. And would look like: [Begin data segment] <rest of target name> ... TargetAddress=10.1.1.45 [End data segment] So, yes the host needs to buffer the last incomplete record, awaiting the text to be concatenated, but there is no rewind or re-parse. What am I missing? If I'm right in my interpretation, then it would seem that your response is overly restrictive. Being concerned about buffer memory is one thing, but when we are talking about a few kilobytes, that is getting too concerned. If an initiator was really so limited in its memory, then it would probably only be doing one login at a time anyway. Stephen -----Original Message----- From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:23 AM To: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Target record not to span PDUs? Good point. I think that we can do this as we have a limit on the size of an individual record far lower than 4096. I'll ad the following text to 2.9.5: A Key=value pair must be confined to a given text response even in the presence of bookmark - i.e., it must start and end within one Text Response. Julo Tow Wang <Tow_Wang@adaptec.com> on 22-08-2001 05:06:44 Please respond to Tow Wang <Tow_Wang@adaptec.com> To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL cc: "'ips@ece.cmu.edu'" <ips@ece.cmu.edu> Subject: Target record not to span PDUs? Julian (and all): Hello. This is regarding draft 07; could we require that target records NOT span across PDU's if a text response for SendTargets is very long? Upon reading appendix E, it seems that a response (of 4096 bytes in length) could end with: [Begin data segment] ... TargetName=I.got.chopped.4096 TargetAddress=10.1.1.45 [End data segment] In the above case, one could not determine whether the address is IP V4 or V6. Even if it had had enough space to put in the whole address, port and group tag, one cannot parse and process the record until inspecting the data segment of the next text response PDU, and this would involve cumulative buffering, back-parsing, etc. I think the above complexity could be avoided, as I can't imagine any single record exceeding 4096 bytes in length. Tow Wang
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:03:56 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |