|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLengthRod, It is clearly missing. I was thinking at something benign like using it an indication that target wants to negotiate. Logout - inititaor is always free to use but it may want to issue a text. Julo
I'm torn, I don't want to make this sort of change late on but I think it would be a good thing in the long term. How about adding the additional async message code and saying upon receipt the initiator MAY start a negotiation sequence or logout and re-login the connection immediately without having to wait for the negotiated timeouts? - Rod -----Original Message----- From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Julian Satran Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:28 PM To: Mallikarjun C. Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; Julian Satran; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength Importance: High Mallikarjun, The question was general and not specific to MaxRecv.... Although we say that negotiation is symmetric we don't have any mechanism through which a target can say it wants to start negotiation something (sort of similar but not as strong as a the "request logout" - "request to negotiate" that will require the initiator to issue a text request and kick-off a negotiation. Julo "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com> To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL Sent by: cc: owner-ips@ece.cmu Subject: Re: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength .edu 06/11/2002 10:50 PM Please respond to "Mallikarjun C." > I also realized that we don't have "negotiation prompt" from the target. > I am not sure that we need one. I am not sure about it either. My preference is not to add this. It appears to me that a target does have the option of dropping the connection today if it can't work with non-ULPDU-contained segments for too long. I suspect that the target would do the same if (we introduced the "negotiation prompt" and) the initiator doesn't/couldn't honor the "negotiation prompt". Thanks. -- Mallikarjun Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Networked Storage Architecture Network Storage Solutions Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 Roseville CA 95747 cbm@rose.hp.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:34 AM Subject: RE: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength > I suggest the following text in 11.13 > > A change of MaxRecvDataSegmentLength by an initiator or target > becomes effective after all commands preceding the negotiation > end-ing request have been processed by the target and their status > is acknowledged. > > I also realized that we don't have "negotiation prompt" from the target. > I am not sure that we need one. > If some of you think we need we may want one additional code in the Asynch > Message. > Please comment TODAY. > > Julo > ----- Forwarded by Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM on 06/11/2002 06:29 PM ----- > > Julian Satran > To: Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com> > 06/11/2002 04:04 cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu, pat_thaler@agilent.com > PM From: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL > Subject: RE: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength(Document link: Julian Satran - Mail) > > > > > > > > > > That is a fair request - we may slip in a recommendation to that effect (in > chapter 11?) > > Julo > > > > Eddy Quicksall > <eddy_quicksall@i To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL > vivity.com> cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu, pat_thaler@agilent.com > Subject: RE: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength > 06/11/2002 04:28 > AM > Please respond to > Eddy Quicksall > > > > > > How about if we say that an initiator must not change the MaxPDUDataSize > unless it first idles the commands (at least the ones with the R bit) or if > ErrorRecoveryLevel==0? > > That would simplify target code greatly and would meet the design goals; > and since it should be rare to change it, it would be of little impact to > idle the commands for a split second. > > > Eddy > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 8:06 PM > To: Eddy Quicksall > Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; pat_thaler@agilent.com > Subject: RE: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength > > > I said only that when you change length you can ask for all PDUs > after the ack! (no need to keep a tall - the old offsets are good up > to the hole). > > Julo > > > Eddy Quicksall > <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com> To: Julian > Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL > cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu, > 06/11/2002 12:32 AM pat_thaler@agilent.com > Please respond to Eddy Quicksall Subject: RE: iSCSI: > changing MaxPDUDataLength > > > > > > > > Julian, > > Another problem here is that the target has to calculate the offset > from the DataSN #. And as BegRun can be any value. E.g., BegRun=4 and > RunLngth=0 means starting DataSN=4, send all the data for that > sequence. > > I think it would be a performance hit and waist of memory to keep a > tally of all PDU sizes just for an occasional SNACK. > > It's not that it can't be done ... it is more that it is messy and I > think there is a solution that will satisfy the design requirements > but keep the software simpler. > > Eddy > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:16 PM > To: Eddy Quicksall > Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu; pat_thaler@agilent.com > Subject: RE: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength > > > That is not completely accurate. > The only problem is when PDU size decreases and then SNACK must be > for all data. > Target can also keep a mapping of numbers/to offsets (the list should > be small and if it gets long ask for ack (A-bit). > > Julo > > Eddy Quicksall > <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com> To: > Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu pat_thaler@agilent.com > cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: RE: iSCSI: > 06/08/2002 10:54 PM changing MaxPDUDataLength > Please respond to Eddy Quicksall > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > As a target, I won't be able to let it change until all of the > outstanding > commands are finished (running with ErrorRecoveryLevel>=1). This is > because > I must use the PDU size to compute the offset from a SNACK's > BegRun/RunLength. > > So, I plan to not give the text response for a MaxPDURecvDataLength > in FFP > until I get back an ExpStatSN == next StatSN. > > This will cause a delay of unknown time before the PDU size can > actually > change ... do you see any problem with this? > > Eddy > > -----Original Message----- > From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:13 PM > To: eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: RE: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength > > > Eddy, > > If one uses a message sync and steering that relys on the transport > segments > carrying a full PDU, e.g. TCP ULP Framing Protocol (TUF), then if the > path > MTU changes one would want to change the PDU data length to fit the > new path > MTU. > > Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 12:24 PM > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: iSCSI: changing MaxPDUDataLength > > > Does anybody know a case where it is necessary to support a new PDU > data > length during full feature phase? > > Eddy > mailto: Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com > > > > > > > > > >
Home Last updated: Wed Jun 12 18:18:46 2002 10729 messages in chronological order |