SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI - change proposal LUN field definition on every PDU



    Folks,
    
    I have followed this thread up to the current time, and I have
    to agree with the people who think that this is probably
    not necessary and has undesirable consequences.
    
    One reason that it is not necessary is that as we write, the
    SCSI MIB people are defining the properties and statistic
    gathering capabilities of SCSI logical units.  These capabilities
    are clearly going to require logical units to capture additional
    performance information using SCSI logging commands (which
    already capture a huge amount of error information).
    
    A second reason that it is not necessary is that the command
    and data counts can be extracted from the command PDU's
    CDB field, which is labeled with a logical unit.  Given that
    the command completes correctly, the counting is already done
    and the count is in the command PDU.
    
    A third reason that it is not necessary is that any decent
    instrumentation on the line has to already be capable of sorting
    through the TCP/IP mapping, the security mappings, and the
    basic PDU identification.  All the monitors that we have today
    in the SCSI environment apply a little simple postprocessing to
    the data they have captured and presto, they not only identify
    PDU's related to particular logical units, but to particular
    commands, and they have interpreted the commands and verified
    that the responses are appropriate to the commands.
    
    If the instrumentation is inline with the receiving code,
    it is by definition aware of the states and identifications
    already available to it and does not need this additional information.
    
    As for undesirable consequences:
    
    Paul Koning's objection to the additional functional steps
    required to provide the LUN is a valid concern.
    
    Mallikarjun Chadalapaka's concern about the requirement for
    additional consistency checking (and a whole new class of
    non-SCSI protocol error checking) is also a valid issue.
    
    Let's talk to your colleague and explain to him/her how there
    are better ways to achieve his/her goals.
    
    Bob Snively                        e-mail:    rsnively@brocade.com
    Brocade Communications Systems     phone:  408 487 8135
    1745 Technology Drive
    San Jose, CA 95110
    
    
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
    > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:31 AM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: iSCSI - change proposal LUN field definition on every PDU
    > Importance: High
    > 
    > 
    > Dear colleagues,
    > 
    > A colleague interested in instrumentation approached me with 
    > a question 
    > about stateless logging of specific LU activity.
    > With the current iSCSI PDU formats this is not possible.
    > We have consistently avoided having fields that are redundant 
    > and will 
    > need consistency checking.
    > However I think we should consider including the LU field in 
    > all PDUs that 
    > are referencing a specific LU to simplify this type of 
    > instrumentation (as 
    > we did with the direction bit in the op-code).
    > 
    > As I am already in "count-down" mode for version 09 I would 
    > appreciate 
    > your comments ASAP.
    > 
    > Julo
    > 
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Nov 13 15:17:39 2001
7787 messages in chronological order