|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: iscsi: unsolicited data question
Dennis,
FirstBurstSize may
be larger than MaxRecvPDUDataSize so InitialR2T=No can allow one to send more
unsolicited data than immediate data alone. Also, an implementation may set
ImmediateData=No because it prefers to handle command and data in separate PDUs
but still accept unsolicited data by setting InitialR2T=No.
Pat
Are
you saying that, for a session that has InitialR2T=No in effect,
the initiator
must send all its data as unsolicited first, up to
the amount negotiated in
FirstBurstSize, before it waits
for a R2T from the
target?
Can you shed some light on
why we need unsolicited Data-out PDU
when there
is ImmediateData, seems like they both serve the same
purpose, having both of
them only make the
spec more complex.
Thanks,
-Dennis
-----Original
Message----- From: Julian Satran
[mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 10:19
AM To: Dennis Young Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu;
owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: iscsi: unsolicited data
question
This is the reason why the initiator is required to
send ALL unsolicited data (target can count on it and start sending R2Ts as
soon as it sees the first header> Neither bandwidth nor latency are wasted.
Julo
| Dennis Young
<dyoung@rhapsodynetworks.com>
06/12/2002 08:05 PM Please respond to Dennis Young
| To:
Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL cc:
ips@ece.cmu.edu, owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject:
RE: iscsi: unsolicited data question
|
Julian,
This leads me to a more interesting
question. A session with
InitialR2T=No in effect, i.e. unsolicited Data-out allowed, could cause unintended waste of bandwidth,
depending on how fast the target
sends our R2T in response to the SCSI Write. If the target sees the unsolicited Data-out PDU before building
the R2T, then everything is
fine. If the target doesn't see
the unsolicited Data-out PDU before building the R2T, the R2T would request the same portion of data in
the unsolicited Data-out, thus
bandwidth is wasted. The question is,
how can a target be smart about this? Should the target wait a moment for the possible unsolicited Data-out
after receiving each SCSI Write,
this sounds kludgy. Also, why do we
need the unsolicited Data-out PDU feature when there is ImmediateData? Regards, Dennis
-----Original Message----- From: Julian Satran
[mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002
6:05 AM To: Dennis Young Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu;
owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: iscsi: unsolicited data
question
yes - julo
| Dennis Young
<dyoung@rhapsodynetworks.com> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
06/12/2002 06:20 AM Please respond to Dennis Young
|
To:
ips@ece.cmu.edu cc:
Subject:
iscsi: unsolicited data question
|
I
have a question which has been asked before, but I couldn't find a direct
answer in the archive. The table on page 200 of draft 12 doesn't
directly answer this question either.
The first paragraph on page 36
of draft 12 says "Targets operate in either solicitied (R2T) data mode or
unsolicited (non R2T) data mode." tells me that a target, at all times
during a data sequence transfer, can be
one or the other, but not both
(non R2T for the initial data out, R2T for the remaining data). Is
this correct?
Thanks, Dennis
---snip from an old email dated
3/30/2001---
" Hi Julian Sorry if I'm covering old ground... Is it
possible to use unsolicited data for the first burst and then request any
remaining data using R2T? For example, if the target has a previously
allocated buffer available (length defined by FirstBurstSize) for
unsolicited data, then once the initiator has sent unsolicited data up to
and including this amount then the remaining data (if any) can be requested
using R2T once the target has the buffer space available. ...Matthew
Burbridge Hewlett Packard, Bristol Telnet: 312 7010
E-mail: matthewb@bri.hp.com "
Home
Last updated: Wed Jun 12 21:18:41 2002
10745 messages in chronological order
|