Re: iscsi : default iscsi mode page settings.

[Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com>]

Julian,

I did not hear back from you on my comments below.

What is the closure on this issue ? I hear at least 4 people who have concerns regarding the
use of mode pages for FirstBurstSize, if I understood John Hufferd's comments right. (Charles
Binford, myself, Sanjeev, John Hufferd). At least 3 of them would prefer to see login keys
being used.

There are the separate issues of :

   * iscsi's specification of defaults for its mode pages which is not in line with mode page
     usage. This impacts the target's ability to enforce values other than the protocol
     specified default, if the initiator were to not use mode sense/select.

   * default settings for login keys.

   * Is there a need for the "LUN Control Mode Page" and whether "Enable CRN" should be in a
     transport specific mode page ?

which need to be driven to closure as well.

Regards,
Santosh



Santosh Rao wrote:

> 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. (??). ]
begin:vcard 
n:Rao;Santosh 
tel;work:408-447-3751
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Hewlett Packard, Cupertino.;SISL
adr:;;19420, Homestead Road, M\S 43LN,	;Cupertino.;CA.;95014.;USA.
version:2.1
email;internet:santoshr@cup.hp.com
title:Software Design Engineer
x-mozilla-cpt:;21088
fn:Santosh Rao
end:vcard