SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: iSCSI: update on OOO CmdSNs/connection



    Somesh,
    
    I am in general saying the same thing as you describe,
    we are perhaps debating on how to phrase the sentiment.
    
    >Error detection and recovery
    > have completely different design requirements than
    > the data path.
    
    Completely agreed, as I have been saying all along.  But 
    we're faced with the task of crafting wording that works 
    for both - my wording was B.  Please suggest alternate 
    wording that you propose.
    
    > So ideally we say MUST or nothing
    > or we negotiate it
    
    In what way saying nothing would help the performance/
    interoperability issues on hand?
    
    > Also on your point A, it "MUST" be a MUST on
    > a single connection case except for when required
    > for error recovery (i.e. the very very rare -
    > case of digest error).
    
    Please see the two conditions that distinguish A from B.
    
    Regards.
    -- 
    Mallikarjun 
    
    
    Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
    Networked Storage Architecture
    Network Storage Solutions Organization
    MS 5668	Hewlett-Packard, Roseville.
    cbm@rose.hp.com
    
    
    Somesh Gupta wrote:
    > 
    > Mallikarjun,
    > 
    > I never liked the SHOULD. It is not a design point.
    > If we really want to allow it, perhaps a negotiation
    > parameter is a better choice (which is only
    > marginally better). Error detection and recovery
    > have completely different design requirements than
    > the data path.
    > 
    > So ideally we say MUST or nothing
    > or we negotiate it
    > 
    > Also on your point A, it "MUST" be a MUST on
    > a single connection case except for when required
    > for error recovery (i.e. the very very rare -
    > case of digest error).
    > 
    > Somesh
    > 
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    > > Mallikarjun C.
    > > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:49 PM
    > > To: ips
    > > Subject: iSCSI: update on OOO CmdSNs/connection
    > >
    > >
    > > To those interested in this discussion:
    > >
    > > Julian and I had a phone conversation on the topic
    > > of OOO CmdSNs on a connection.  An update follows.
    > >
    > > Julian agrees that there are valid error recovery
    > > scenarios where CmdSNs will legitimately end up OOO
    > > on a given connection.
    > >
    > > OTOH, I agree with two of Julian's scenarios that he
    > > pointed out right away - the "cleaning command" (command
    > > required to be sent after a retry copy to ensure flushing
    > > within 2^31 -1), and an immediate Logout posted with
    > > unacknowledged commands.  Neither of this can be shipped
    > > OOO - since the former undoes the flushing intent, and
    > > the latter breaks the rule that nothing more follows a
    > > Logout on the connection (and troublesome in other ways,
    > > see below).
    > >
    > > In general, I share the concern with Julian that we
    > > have not closely scrutinized all possibilities.
    > >
    > > With that said, something along the following lines
    > > seemed reasonable -
    > >
    > > A)Initiator MUST send commands in increasing order of
    > >   CmdSN on a connection if both the following are true -
    > >       - operational ErrorRecoveryLevel is 0,
    > >       - MaxConnections is negotiated to 1.
    > > B)In all the other cases, initiator SHOULD send commands
    > >   in increasing order of CmdSN on a connection.  It is
    > >   strongly encouraged that commands with out-of-order
    > >   CmdSNs be sent on a connection only if they are
    > >   retransmitted commands due to digest error recovery
    > >   and connection recovery.
    > >
    > > I also suggest the following upon further reflection-
    > >
    > > C)Add wording in section 2.2.2.1 to mandate that
    > >   the cleaning command MUST be sent in-order after
    > >   the retried command.
    > > D)Warn clearly that sending an immediate Logout command
    > >   in the presence of other unacknowledged commands MAY
    > >   create inadvertent discarding of certain commands (even
    > >   if it is a recovery Logout), and MAY cause protocol
    > >   errors leading to ungraceful shutdown of the connection.
    > >
    > > Hopefully A will bring the determinism that Somesh was
    > > looking for certain design points.  B describes the more
    > > general n-connection session case.  C & D are fixes for
    > > two identfied areas (so far) which will break.
    > >
    > > Comments?
    > > --
    > > Mallikarjun
    > >
    > >
    > > Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
    > > Networked Storage Architecture
    > > Network Storage Solutions Organization
    > > MS 5668       Hewlett-Packard, Roseville.
    > > cbm@rose.hp.com
    > >
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Nov 13 16:17:36 2001
7788 messages in chronological order