|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12Julian, I know I am at the risk of sounding repetitive..... > I understand all those arguments. However I assume that a target is > deigned to handle a certain number of commands. > If the commands come without unsolicited data buffers are immediately > available for R2T. Completely agreed, that wasn't the point I was making (in fact, I said there isn't any difference b/n unsolicited and solicited buffers). My only concern is that the lack of determinism on the usage of pre-allocated buffers may eventually end up discouraging the adoption of unsolicited data as a generally implemented feature. Having expressed my preference, I don't want to make this an issue delaying rev12 either. I will leave it up to you to make the call. Thanks. -- Mallikarjun Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Networked Storage Architecture Network Storage Solutions Organization Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 Roseville CA 95747 cbm@rose.hp.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> To: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com> Cc: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <matthew_burbridge@hp.com> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:16 PM Subject: Re: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12 > Mallikarjun, > > I understand all those arguments. However I assume that a target is > deigned to handle a certain number of commands. > If the commands come without unsolicited data buffers are immediately > available for R2T. > > A good argument against removing the restriction is that at the target > solicited data require more processing than unsolicited data and this is > generally a resource an initiator shares with others and we should not > encourage him to behave badly. > > However since we do not mandate unsolicited data I do not see how leaving > the initiator to make the decision on a task basis would affect the target > and the initiator will not do it indiscriminately anyhow because it takes > a performance hit for using solicited data. > > And thanks for 9.3.5. > > Julo > > > > > "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com> > 09-04-02 02:15 > Please respond to "Mallikarjun C." > > > To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL > cc: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>, "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" > <matthew_burbridge@hp.com> > Subject: Re: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12 > > > > Julian, > > I didn't read Matthew's note as saying that implementations keep > separate buffers for solicited and unsolicited data. > > I think the issue is that the target may need to reserve the buffers > for unsolicited data *apriori* for whatever command window credit > it had announced. This reservation may actually constrain the max > credit that the target announces - and if the reserved buffers are not > used eventually, targets may not be as motivated to support unsolicited > data, or may seriously underprovision buffers (and use R2T to recoup > discarded data, if initiator does send unsolicited data for all commands) > - either of which would defeat the performance benefits intended by > this feature in the first place. > > I recommend that we stay with the new tightened wording in section > 2.2.4 of 11-91. BTW, section 9.3.5 needs to be sync'ed with this > (it still uses SHOULD) - or ideally should refer back to 2.2.4. > > My 0.02. > -- > Mallikarjun > > Mallikarjun Chadalapaka > Networked Storage Architecture > Network Storage Solutions Organization > Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 > Roseville CA 95747 > cbm@rose.hp.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> > To: "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <matthew_burbridge@hp.com> > Cc: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; "'John Hufferd'" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>; > "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" > <matthew_burbridge@hp.com>; <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>; "Rod Harrison" > <rod.harrison@windriver.com> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:00 PM > Subject: RE: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12 > > > > I am with John here (the third guy that is right) - why would an > > implementer have separate buffers for solicited and unsolicited data? > > > > Julo > > > > > > > > > > "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <matthew_burbridge@hp.com> > > 08-04-02 21:43 > > Please respond to "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" > > > > > > To: John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS, "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW > > (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <matthew_burbridge@hp.com> > > cc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Rod Harrison > <rod.harrison@windriver.com>, > > ips@ece.cmu.edu, owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: RE: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12 > > > > > > > > John, > > > > It's not so much an implementation problem but one resource management > > problem in that if unsolicited data has been negotiated then target MUST > > pre-allocate buffers with which to store the unsolicited when it > arrives. > > The target implementors will decided whether they want to use unsolicted > > data and take the buffer resource hit in doing so. However, if they do > > wish > > to take this hit but the initators decide not to use unsolicited data > > (even > > though they have negotiated to use it) then there is potientially a lot > of > > valuable buffer resources tied in up for unsolicited data but which is > not > > being used. > > > > Matthew > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Hufferd [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:13 AM > > To: BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2) > > Cc: 'Julian Satran'; Rod Harrison; ips@ece.cmu.edu; > > owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: RE: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12 > > > > > > > > Please explain, why an initiator deciding to not send unsolicited data > for > > a specific command causes an implementation problem. That was not clear > > from your statements. You still need the R2T capability, so what is > lost? > > > > . > > . > > . > > John L. Hufferd > > Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) > > IBM/SSG San Jose Ca > > Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403, eFax: (408) 904-4688 > > Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702 > > Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com > > > > > > "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <matthew_burbridge@hp.com> > > @ece.cmu.edu on 04/08/2002 10:25:55 AM > > > > Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu > > > > > > To: "'Julian Satran'" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>, Rod Harrison > > <rod.harrison@windriver.com> > > cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu, owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: RE: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12 > > > > > > > > I must express my concern on this issue. From a target point of view > once > > it has negoiated the use of unsolicited data it has to allocate buffer > > space > > for that unsolicited data. Now depending on the various parameters this > > may > > be a sizeable chunk of valuable resources which it is making available. > > Now > > if the decision to use unsolicited data is being moved from a per > session > > to > > per task basis (which is what this change effectively does) then it puts > > an > > awful lot of resource overhead on the target which may never be used. > > > > For the reasons above I propose that we do not relax the v12 restriction > > and > > keep it as: > > > > "An iSCSI initiator MUST send as unsolicited data either the negotiated > > amount or all the data if the total amount is less than the negotiated > > amount for unsolicited data." > > > > Matthew Burbridge > > Principal Engineer > > NSAS-Bristol > > Hewlett Packard > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 9:36 AM > > To: Rod Harrison > > Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: Re: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12 > > > > > > > > OK - Julo > > > > > > "Rod Harrison" <rod.harrison@windriver.com> > > Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu > > 08-04-02 14:52 > > Please respond to "Rod Harrison" > > > > To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu> > > cc: > > Subject: ISCSI: Unsolicited data in draft v12 > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose we slightly relax the new restriction in draft > > v12 > > that the > > initiator MUST send the maximum permissible amount of unsolicited data. > I > > suggest we change the rule to allow the initiator to either send no > > unsolicited data, or the maximum permissible. > > > > There is no difficulty for the target here since the > lack > > of > > unsolicited > > data will be clearly indicated by a command PDU with F bit set and > > dataSegLen=0. The target will have all the information it needs to > > immediately issue R2Ts as appropriate. > > > > I believe the initiator should be able to make a policy > > decision on which > > individual commands should be sent with unsolicited data and which > should > > not. > > > > In draft 11.91 section 2.2.4 I suggest we change > > > > "An iSCSI initiator MUST send as unsolicited data either the negotiated > > amount or all the data if the total amount is less than the negotiated > > amount for unsolicited data." > > > > to something like > > > > "An iSCSI initiator MAY choose to send no unsolicited data with a > command, > > or if any unsolicited data is sent it MUST be either the negotiated > amount > > or all the data if the total amount is less than the negotiated amount > for > > unsolicited data." > > > > - Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Home Last updated: Tue Apr 09 17:18:17 2002 9566 messages in chronological order |