|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iscsi : iscsi parameter default valuesIn 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 |