Re: iSCSI : Digest Error Problems & CmdSN/ExpCmdSN window issues

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

If the header is a data header we can hardly trust the ULP to recognize the
error (he might be unaware
of a missing packet).  With data numbering this situation could have been
discovered at "status time".
The only thing we could do is restart all commands but this is equivalent
to a connection restart for all practical purposes.  Dropping data
numbering might have some more "side-effects" like this.
As the combination of values - tag, address, offset may stil let some
implementations to assume that they have
a correct task identifier I don't see a point in mandating a recovery
behavior and the implementer may choose to:

-retry/restart command
-logout drop and rebuild connection login and restart/retry
-abort all task sets (practically reset the target!) and report for all
commands a "delivery system failure" (kick-in the ULP recovery) and if you
suspect the link quality rebuild it; this later behavior means also that
you have to stop delivering anything on any link  to the target to avoid
out of order execution until you have finished the cleanup - pretty drastic

With data numbering recovery could have stayed within the confines of a
command even if a header was bad.
Perhaps we should leave the DataSN only as a sequencer so that at
status-time the initiator should be able to find if a data packet was
dropped (no ExpDataSN on a NOP).

Regards,
Julo




Michael Krause <krause@cup.hp.com> on 27/01/2001 04:59:12

Please respond to Michael Krause <krause@cup.hp.com>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  Re: iSCSI : Digest Error Problems & CmdSN/ExpCmdSN window  issues




At 07:40 PM 1/25/2001 +0200, julian_satran@il.ibm.com wrote:


>1) The initiator task tag cannot be trusted when a header digest error
>is seen. What does the phrase "provided it can recognize the initiator
>task tag" mean ?
>How can an initiator reliably claim that the initiator task tag is
>trustworthy ?
>
><js> an initiator may choose to provide some redundancy in the tag itself
></js>

I'm aware of some techniques for inserting redundant information in tags
which limits the potential error exposure when a multi-bit error occurs,
however these are not fail-safe leading to potential incorrect operation -
perhaps benign in many cases; perhaps not in others. As such, if a header
digest error occurs, the PDU should be silently discarded and recovery
should be left to the ULP.  There is little to no value having two
mechanisms to solve the same problem.

Mike