SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: Unsolicited Data.



    It says "all the unsolicited data associated ". You read it as "all the data
    associated".
    
    Does that help the confusion?
    
    Eddy
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <matthew_burbridge@hp.com>
    To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:33 AM
    Subject: RE: Unsolicited Data.
    
    
    > Hi Sanjeev,
    >
    > Perhaps I'm getting confused here:  From 2.3.1 below, if the F bit is set
    > then it indicates the immediate data that acompany the command is all the
    > data associated with the command.  However, if there is no immediated
    data,
    > but data is to be written the F bit can not be set to 1.  In this case the
    > data is either sent a unsolicited Data PDUs or as solicited data PDUs.
    This
    > reverts back to my original point of changing the spec to state that if
    > unsolicited data has been negoiated then the initiator MUST honour it.
    >
    > With regards to your comment: "Is it still going to help if Unsolicited
    data
    > is not chosen to be sent while IntialR2t=No has been negotiated???? Or do
    I
    > have misunderstanding with a general delivery path here."  may I can
    explain
    > my concern: If the initiator does not choose to send unsolicited data
    > although it has negoiated to do so, how is the data transfers insigated as
    > the target is expecting unsoliciated Data PDU but the initiator is
    expecting
    > an R2T?
    >
    > Feel free to call me so we can discuss offline.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Matthew Burbridge
    > NIS-Bristol
    > Hewlett Packard
    > Telnet: 312 7010
    > Tel UK (44) 117 312 7010
    > E-mail: matthewb@bri.hp.com
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Sanjeev Bhagat (TRIPACE/Zoetermeer) [mailto:sbhagat@tripace.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 1:09 PM
    > To: 'BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)'; ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Cc: 'steph@cs.uchicago.edu'
    > Subject: RE: Unsolicited Data.
    >
    >
    > Matthew,
    >
    > among the two options you gave I would like to comment on the second
    >
    > It is possible for initiator **not** to send any unsolicited data and send
    > the rest of data as solicited data by the use of bit 7 in Flags and Task
    > Attributes. This is posted here
    http://ips.pdl.cs.cmu.edu/mail/msg04647.html
    >
    > The new 2.3.1 is:
    >
    > 2.3.1     Flags and Task Attributes
    >
    >       The flags for a SCSI Command are:
    >
    >       b7   (F) set to 1 when the immediate data that accompany the command
    >       are all the unsolicited data associated with this command. For a
    >       write, if Expected Data Transfer Length is larger than the Length
    the
    >       target may solicit additional data through R2T.
    >
    > About the option no. 1 Stephen has already explained. Refer to the very
    > specific paragraph below of his email
    >
    > In a hardware accelerate implementation, unsolicited data will be
    > handled differently than solicited data.  The target can chose where
    > the solicited data is delivered, but unsolicited data arrives through
    > a general-delivery path.  Therefore, if the offered unsolicited data
    > burst size approaches the regular burst size, an implementation will
    > need TWICE as much buffer memory (half in the general-delivery area
    > and half in the flow-controlled buffer area) to support the same
    > operation load.  Maybe this tradeoff is OK, but given the cost
    > sensitivity of storage targets, I doubt it.
    >
    > I would like to comment one thing here that in the current iSCSI specs
    > implementation the complete data for a specific command Including (Cmd
    PDUS
    > , Data PDUs and Response PDUs) follow the same path. So the whole of data
    > will follow the general delivery path (same connection) whether solicited
    or
    > unsolicited. Is it still going to help if Unsolicited data is not chosen
    to
    > be sent while IntialR2t=No has been negotiated???? Or do I have
    > misunderstanding with a general delivery path here.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Sanjeev
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
    > [mailto:matthew_burbridge@hp.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 12:40 AM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: RE: Unsolicited Data.
    >
    >
    > Hi Stephen, Sanjeev, and other interested parties,
    >
    > I whole heartily agree with both of your comments and see the benefit of
    > unsolicited data in removing the R2T induced latency for both small writes
    > and large writes on systems where such latency is an issue.  However, for
    > large writes the unsolicited portion of the data need not be all the data
    in
    > the transfer but enough to overcome the initial latency.
    >
    > My main concern is that although the initiator and target have negoiated
    to
    > use unsolicited data (InitialR2t=no), in the spec it appears to be
    optional.
    > Therefore how does the target know that unsolicited data will be sent.
    > Currently it does not and the target will have to set a timer that expires
    > if no unsolicited data is forthcoming which will incur an even more
    > unacceptable latency.
    >
    > I see that there are two options:
    > 1)State in the spec that if unsolicited data has been negotiated then the
    > initiator MUST honour it. (My preferred)
    > 2)Have a flag in the SCSI Command PDU indicating that data is expected (No
    > thanks).
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Matthew Burbridge
    > NIS-Bristol
    > Hewlett Packard
    > Telnet: 312 7010
    > E-mail: matthewb@bri.hp.com
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Stephen Bailey [mailto:steph@cs.uchicago.edu]
    > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 2:20 AM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: Re: Unsolicited Data.
    >
    >
    > Sanjeev,
    >
    > > why would initiator choose not to send unsolicited immediate data when
    > > it has negotiated for IntialR2T= Yes??
    >
    > I assume you mean InitialR2T=no.
    >
    > I would do this because I think that the real benefit of unsolicited
    > data is for writes where ALL the write data can be sent unsolicited,
    > and I'm happy to have the target schedule the transfer of (ALL) data
    > for larger writes.  Of course, others would say I'm a moron.
    >
    > Assuming the overwhelming majority of storage use is file access,
    > small writes are exclusively file system metadata writes.  Unsolicited
    > data is a huge win for metadata writes because the latency of these
    > metadata writes is frequently not covered by transferring other data
    > (within a single access thread).  On the other hand, the file system
    > (usually) generates enough concurrent demand for real data writes that
    > the flow control (R2T) latency is well hidden.
    >
    > You might argue that if you're running a file system optimized fors
    > today's SANs over a link with a HUGE bandwidth * delay product
    > (greater than the expected demand created by the file system), sending
    > large amounts of unsolicited write data will substantially improve the
    > link utilization.  That is true, but I don't think many targets are
    > going to offer unsolicited data bursts remotely that large.
    >
    > In a hardware accelerate implementation, unsolicited data will be
    > handled differently than solicited data.  The target can chose where
    > the solicited data is delivered, but unsolicited data arrives through
    > a general-delivery path.  Therefore, if the offered unsolicited data
    > burst size approaches the regular burst size, an implementation will
    > need TWICE as much buffer memory (half in the general-delivery area
    > and half in the flow-controlled buffer area) to support the same
    > operation load.  Maybe this tradeoff is OK, but given the cost
    > sensitivity of storage targets, I doubt it.
    >
    > As always, I welcome comments from those who see things differently.
    >
    > Steph
    >
    

    • References:


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:32 2001
6315 messages in chronological order