SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iscsi : iscsi parameter default values



    In the target that I was involved with once, the cache would need
    significant change for immediate data. So, the change is not only in the
    transport layer, it is in the cache layer (ugh!).  :-(
    
    Eddy
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Somesh Gupta [mailto:somesh_gupta@silverbacksystems.com]
    Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:41 PM
    To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: RE: iscsi : iscsi parameter default values
    
    
    Julian,
    
    You still did not answer my question. If you do have any
    information (specific product related), I would really
    appreciate that.
    
    Thanks,
    Somesh
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    > Julian Satran
    > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 10:52 PM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: RE: iscsi : iscsi parameter default values
    >
    >
    >
    > Somesh,
    >
    > There is a lot of confusion between immediate and non-solicited
    > in general.
    > There is no need to change the transport at all.
    > See my previous answer to Robert Snively.
    >
    > Julo
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >                     "Somesh Gupta"
    >
    >                     <somesh_gupta@silverbacksy       To:
    > "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>,
    >                     stems.com>
    > <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    >                                                      cc:
    >
    >                     28-09-01 23:44                   Subject:
    > RE: iscsi : iscsi parameter default values
    >                     Please respond to
    >
    >                     somesh_gupta
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Is there any target today that will handle ImmediateData
    > without a significant change to the transport API? Also
    > is there any target that does use out of order R2Ts?
    > (Just curious)
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf
    Of
    > > Julian Satran
    > > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:50 AM
    > > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > > Subject: RE: iscsi : iscsi parameter default values
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The one that I have trouble living with is ImmediateData. This is
    > > important
    > > for low-end desktops and hardly matters for large boxes.
    > > As such I would suggest it stays as yes.
    > >
    > > Julo
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >                     "Eddy
    > >
    > >                     Quicksall"            To:     "'Santosh Rao'"
    > > <santoshr@cup.hp.com>,
    > >                     <EQuicksall@med        <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    > >
    > >                     iaone.net>            cc:
    > >
    > >                     Sent by:              Subject:     RE: iscsi
    > > : iscsi parameter default values
    > >                     owner-ips@ece.c
    > >
    > >                     mu.edu
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >                     27-09-01 17:22
    > >
    > >                     Please respond
    > >
    > >                     to "Eddy
    > >
    > >                     Quicksall"
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I like your defaults below.
    > >
    > > But, section 5 says:
    > >
    > >  The initial Login request MUST include the InitiatorName and
    > >  SessionType key=value pairs.
    > >
    > > Since SessionType is REQUIRED, naming a default would imply a
    > > possible typo
    > > in the spec.
    > >
    > > Eddy
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Santosh Rao [mailto:santoshr@cup.hp.com]
    > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:29 PM
    > > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > > Subject: iscsi : iscsi parameter default values
    > >
    > >
    > > All,
    > >
    > > With the issue of mode page vs. login keys having [almost] drawn to
    a
    > > close, I would like to
    > > raise the below issues again, on the subject of default values for
    login
    > > keys and other iscsi
    > > parameters :
    > >
    > >
    > >    * In keeping with traditional use of scsi mode pages, iscsi
    should
    > > not specify any default
    > >      settings for any mode pages that continue to exist for iscsi.
    > > "Default values" for mode
    > >      pages are target specific and should not be bound to the
    protocol
    > > draft.
    > >
    > >    * MORE IMPORTANTLY, I read the default for EMDP as being set to 1
    > > :-<  This implies that
    > >      targets must be always prepared to deal with out of order data
    and
    > > initiators must be
    > >      prepared to deal with out of order data, unless the initiator
    > > performs a mode select to
    > >      disable it. [which defeats all the previous advantages gained
    thru
    > > mandating use of login
    > >      keys for other negotiations.]. A default, if it were to exist,
    > > should be 0. (in-order, by
    > >      default).
    > >
    > >    * Conservative specification of defaults for login keys along the
    > > following lines :
    > >                             MaxConnections = 1
    > >                             FMarker = "no"
    > >                             InitialR2T = "yes"
    > >                             BidiInitialR2T = "yes"
    > >                             ImmediateData = "no"
    > >                             DataPDULength = 16
    > >                             MaxOutstandingR2T = 1
    > >                             DataPDUInOrder = "yes"
    > >                             ErrorRecoveryLevel = 0
    > >                             SessionType = "normal"
    > >
    > >    * Should the iscsi protocol require a "Lun Control Mode Page"?
    IOW,
    > > is an EnableCRN bit
    > >      required at the transport layer ? If the device server
    capability
    > > is to be negotiated , I
    > >      suggest this bit be moved to a SCSI ULP Mode Page such as the
    > > "Control Mode Page", through a
    > >      T10 change as a part of the SCSI changes being driven by iscsi.
    > >
    > > Comments ?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Santosh
    > >
    > >
    > > Santosh Rao wrote:
    > >
    > > > 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
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    


Home

Last updated: Mon Oct 01 15:17:21 2001
6933 messages in chronological order