SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: iscsi : default iscsi mode page settings.



    Julian, Santosh,
    
    Can we make all the SCSI mode page paramters be made as login keys? Why
    should they be kept in a seperate mode page at all??
    
    Sanjeev
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>
    To: "Santosh Rao" <santoshr@cup.hp.com>
    Cc: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>; <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:34 PM
    Subject: Re: iscsi : default iscsi mode page settings.
    
    
    >
    > In addition to what Santosh said,  If I understand this right,
    > I think it is a problem for iSCSI to have to keep going across layers to
    > determine what the values are.  Since iSCSI Target will not see the CDB
    > that caused the values to change.
    >
    > Now if the value in the mode page is only the default, that would be a
    > different issue.
    >
    > .
    > .
    > .
    > 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
    >
    >
    > Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 09/24/2001 12:28:43 PM
    >
    > Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    >
    >
    > To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
    > cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject:  Re: iscsi : default iscsi mode page settings.
    >
    >
    >
    > Julian Satran wrote:
    >
    > > I can sympathize with you wanting to use most of the parameters in iSCSI
    > -
    > > but the values are in fact restrictions that SCSI places on iSCSI.
    >
    > Julian,
    >
    > I'm confused by your response.
    >
    > The SPC-2 description of Disconnect-Reconnect mode page indicates that :
    > "The parameters appropriate to each protocol and their interpretation for
    > that protocol may
    > be specified in the individual protocol documents".
    >
    > FYI, SPI[-4] has chosen not to attach any semantics to FirstBurstSize for
    > the pSCSI
    > transport. Thus, iscsi is within its rights to declare this field as
    > reserved and attach no
    > meaning to it in the mode page. The FirstBurstSize can be negotiated
    during
    > iscsi login
    > through a login key.
    >
    >
    > > Nevertheless the discussion is rather academic because SCSI can hand
    > those
    > > parameters to iSCSI.
    >
    > Again, I'm confused by your response. The reasons I'm suggesting the use
    of
    > a login key
    > instead of the mode page method are :
    >
    >    * More accurate scope (applies only to this I-T nexus).
    >
    >    * More optimal negotiation and reduced overhead in the establishment of
    > the I-T nexus. (2
    >      less SCSI commands per I-T nexus establishment.).
    >
    >    * Enables faster I/O scan times due to lesser on-the-wire activity
    > during I-T nexus
    >      establishment.
    >
    >    * Allows less room for error in the I-T nexus establishment (no
    > possiblity of failure to
    >      establish I-T nexus due to mode sense/select command failure).
    >
    >    * Avoids mode select wars that can occur when target uses shared mode
    > pages.
    >
    >    * Simpler initiator implementations since they can avoid embedding SCSI
    > command set
    >      knowledge as well as code to build/parse SCSI commands. Also, they
    can
    > avoid extra code
    >      that is required to snoop for CHECK CONDITION with (sense key=UA, ASC
    > ="mode parameters
    >      changed") in order to re-issue a mode sense to determine new values
    > for FirstBurstSize.
    >
    >    * Less code to interact with SCSI ULP application client to co-ordinate
    > the mode page
    >      values b/n the ULP & LLP.
    >
    >    * Can use un-solicited data from the very first scsi command in the
    > session.
    >
    > I don't consider any of the above reasons to be academic and would like to
    > know which ones
    > among the above do you believe are academic and why ?
    >
    >
    > > SCSI can handle those parameters dynamically. iSCSI may have trouble
    > > handling this type of negotiation dynamically over several connections.
    >
    > This is exactly the kind of stuff we don't need and should actually be
    > trying to avoid. What
    > good does dynamically changing FirstBurstSize serve ? Dynamically changing
    > FirstBurstSize
    > would only be achieved with least side-effects if :
    > 1) The mode select implementation on target is not using shared mode
    pages.
    > 2) The initiator has quiesced I/O prior to issuing the mode select for the
    > change.
    >
    > Neither of the above 2 conditions would typically apply and any dynamic
    > change of
    > FirstBurstSize would only cause initiators to see a bunch of side-effects
    > such as :
    > a) Active outbound I/Os aborted by the target with a CHECK CONDITION due
    to
    > "not enough
    > un-solicited data".
    > b) UA CHECK CONDITION for "mode parameters changed".
    >
    > In the interests of simplification and avoiding disruption of active I/O,
    > such modifications
    > must be avoided as far as possible. One way to achieve that is to use a
    > login key and make
    > it LO.
    >
    >
    > >
    > > Resource-wise (as Bob Snively has pointed out) those are SCSI issues.
    > >
    > > A nice way out would be to ask T10 for a text mode negotiaton :-)
    >
    > Once again, I'm perplexed by your response. I'm not saying that text mode
    > negotiation is the
    > reason I suggest moving this to a login key. The main objective is to
    > isolate such
    > negotiation within the iscsi layer in an iscsi specific PDU that is a part
    > of the iscsi
    > login process.
    >
    > Hope you will consider all of the above factors.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Santosh
    >
    > ps : [I wonder if there are any others on this list who care to voice
    their
    > opinion on this
    > issue. (??). ]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    
    


Home

Last updated: Mon Sep 24 21:17:20 2001
6704 messages in chronological order