Re: iSCSI question

["Anshul Chadda" <achadda@trebia.com>]

Isn't the error recovery hierarachy based on complexitiy??

* Session recovery(0)- some amount of code
* Command/PDU recovery(1)- more code than for session recovery
* Connection recovery(2) - even more code than for Command/PDU recovery

This basis of hierarchy makes negotiation of ErrorRecoveryLevel easier
between initiators and targets!!

Anshul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shahram Davari" <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
To: "'Bill Studenmund'" <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>
Cc: <pat_thaler@agilent.com>; <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>; <ips@ece.cmu.edu>;
<owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: iSCSI question


> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Please see my comments below:
>
> 1) I doubt that the session re-establishment code is simpler than PDU
recovery code.
> But think what you are saying is that, you need to have the session
recovery anyway, so the PDU recovery is extra code.
> 2) Even if that is the case, it has nothing to do with the error recovery
hierarchy.
> The error recovery hierarchy must show what recovery should be tried
before the other ones. In other words it has to show how the recovery
escalates.
> 3) I think it should escalate as following: PDU -> Connection -> Session
>
>
> Yours,
> -Shahram
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Studenmund [mailto:wrstuden@wasabisystems.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 3:59 PM
> > To: Shahram Davari
> > Cc: 'pat_thaler@agilent.com'; Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com;
> > ips@ece.cmu.edu;
> > owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: RE: iSCSI question
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Shahram Davari wrote:
> >
> > > Pat,
> > >
> >
> > > Thanks. I understand your point. Although terminating a
> > session may be
> > > easy, but, starting a new session requires new login, parameter
> > > exchange, new connections establishment, authentication, etc. So I
> > > wonder how is this any simpler than a simple PDU retransmit?
> >
> > It's simpler in terms of the code in both the initiator and target.
> >
> > That's how it's simpler. :-)
> >
> > Take care,
> >
> > Bill
> >