|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: update on OOO CmdSNs/connectionYou change it faster than I can read :-) Instead of Read further you should have said, Read the latest. Somesh > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of > Julian Satran > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:15 AM > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: RE: iSCSI: update on OOO CmdSNs/connection > > > Somesh, > > Read further - yes it is back a MUST (it does not make sense to make it a > blanket SHOULD). > > Julo > > > > > "Somesh Gupta" <somesh_gupta@silverbacksystems.com> > Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu > 15-11-01 20:54 > Please respond to somesh_gupta > > > To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu> > cc: > Subject: RE: iSCSI: update on OOO CmdSNs/connection > > > > Julian, > > As was mentioned previously, there is a signficant > different in how you design for error recovery > corner cases, and how you design for the main path. > > The SHOULD is neither. I would prefer one of the following > > 1. Make it a MUST or not mention it at all. > or > 2. Make it a negotiable parameter. > > The way it is, it does not provide any benefit to > the initiator (it is a MUST in a very important case), > and for the target it becomes a nebulous design choice. > > Regards, > Somesh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of > > Julian Satran > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:46 AM > > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: RE: iSCSI: update on OOO CmdSNs/connection > > > > > > Somesh, > > > > The reason we have put in the SHOULD is that it better reflects what is > > happening on recovery anyhow. > > The text also clearly outlines when the SHOULD becomes MUST and that is > > the case you where concerned about. > > > > Regards, > > Julo > > > > > > > > > > > > "Somesh Gupta" <somesh_gupta@silverbacksystems.com> > > Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu > > 13-11-01 22:53 > > Please respond to somesh_gupta > > > > > > To: "ips" <ips@ece.cmu.edu> > > cc: > > Subject: RE: iSCSI: update on OOO CmdSNs/connection > > > > > > > > Julian, > > > > I am surprised to see the text in the latest rev > > of the doc change as suggested by Mallikarjun. > > I did not think there was a consensus on this > > subject. > > > > Just because I did not respond to Mallikarjun's > > last comment publicly should not be construed > > as agreement. Having the last word is hopefully > > not assumed to be consensus, otherwise a thread > > may never end. > > > > Somesh > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of > > > Somesh Gupta > > > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 3:26 PM > > > To: ips > > > Subject: RE: iSCSI: update on OOO CmdSNs/connection > > > > > > > > > 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: Fri Nov 16 02:17:47 2001 7827 messages in chronological order |