Re: multiple connections

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

Why would the motivation to do recovery decrease?  With multiple links you
have to do recovery/fail-over to keep the MTBF from nosediving.
The motivation stay the same (and the question on where to do it also).
It is not different than in the symmetric case and we keep track of closed
action
trough the status numbering scheme.

Julo

csapuntz@cisco.com on 06/09/2000 20:56:30

Please respond to csapuntz@cisco.com

To:   Matt Wakeley <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>
cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu, csapuntz@cisco.com (bcc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM)
Subject:  Re: multiple connections





> > This proposal allows removing the command counters - as commands use a
> > single TCP connection. The single connection can also be a shared
> > data+control connection.
>
> For the case of the command connection failure and fail-over to a new
> connection, I don't see how you can get away from the command counters.
When a
> fail over occurs, you will need some way of finding out what commands
made it
> to the target and which didn't.  The easiest way to do this is with
command
> numbering.
>

I believe the initiator task tag could be used for recovery.

You still need StatRN's though, unless you want to ACK each status.

With only one control connection, maybe our motivation for doing recovery
decreases.

-Costa