|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSCSI ACA requirementI'm having heartburn with the statement in iSCSI rev 10 clause 9.2: "As iSCSI can have many commands in-flight between initiator and target, iSCSI mandates support for ACA." My understanding of the above statement is that iSCSI target must indicate support for NACA=1. Requiring ACA is problematic and normally not necessary for implementations for a variety of reasons. Examples: a. A small number of devices actually support NACA=1. b. In practice FC applications do not require command ordering (i.e., use of the Simple Queue Tag). If ordering is a consideration the application will issue the command and wait for the response. c. The FC/FCP standards do not require NACA=1. d. Complicates bridging implementations - bridge must proxy NACA=1 for a device that does not support NACA=1 - bridge must maintain NACA behavior when the end device does not support NACA=1 I do understand the benefits to requiring NACA=1 especially when command ordering and stateful operations are desired, but its not realistic at this time, IMHO. As such this use of ACA should be a SHOULD, not a must or mandate. Dave
Home Last updated: Sat Feb 02 03:18:13 2002 8606 messages in chronological order |