SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Some thoughts about draft 05 of iSCSI


    • To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>, <julian_satran@il.ibm.com>
    • Subject: Some thoughts about draft 05 of iSCSI
    • From: "Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven" <JeroenR@InterXion.com>
    • Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:20:34 +0100
    • content-class: urn:content-classes:message
    • Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    • Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1"
    • Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    • Thread-Index: AcCtSlVPmw/ri6HPTDmyPsjXIGchbA==
    • Thread-Topic: Some thoughts about draft 05 of iSCSI

    Hi all,
    
    first, I am (not yet) subscribed to the list, so if you people
    could keep me in the CC:-loop for this thread I would very much
    appreciate it.
    
    Second, I have some remarks I want to make and some questions to
    ask.  Please bear with me that storage solutions aren't exactly
    my forte aside from a consumer/customer point of view, I am more
    of a networking/programmer type, so I might be asking things which
    might be normal stuff for you.
    I've read some large parts of the archives already, but I might
    have missed my answers.
    
    1) Why was it decided to use a 16 number dotted decimal specifier
       for IPv6 addresses?  As far as I know, and reading RFC 2373
       again, it is not mentioned anywhere, and it is so different from
       what is currently standard practice in notation.  Sure, it's
       simply basic convert-the-number-from-base-x-to-base-y type of
       stuff, but the current practice always settles on colon-delimited
       hexadecimal.
    
    2) From reading the draft it seems logical to implement iSCSI in
       Operatnig System in a NFS like form, in which certain disk access
       gets exported and the kernel/low-level stuff/daemon(s) handle the
       actual requests/responses.
       What scares me though is that with NFS one knows he is accessing
       filesystems over a network, with iSCSI we want to make it as
       transparent as possible [at least that's how it struck me], but
       how is the blocking issue looked upon then?  It seems hard to
       guarantee the same reponse over a network as with directly coupled
       cables.  I am very much interested in this, since if we want to
       deploy this as a product our customers will have at least the
       following demands/questions:
    
    	- data integrity
    	- speed/latency
    
    3) Julian, on page 80 of draft 05, section 6.2, last sentence:
       "it receives the a Data PDU with" should probably be:
       "it receives a DATA PDU with".
    
    4) Am I correct in assuming, based 'pon my readnig of the draft, that
       bursting is limited to what FirstBurstSize is set to?  So there is
       little/no chance of having the iSCSI protocol saturate the available
       networkbandwidth all of a sudden by bursting to the max.
    
    5) The draft specifies that both data PDU and commands are being sent
       over the same TCP connection.  This got me curious about the fact
       if iSCSI commands would get delayed if sufficiently large amounts of
       data are being sent over the TCP connection.
       For example, with some protocols they have a seperate control and
    data
       connection.  IIRC, NNTP-streaming has it, ISDN is another prime
       example of this.
    
    Thanks in advance for any trouble and time taken to answer
    my questions,
    
    -- 
    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jeroenr@interxion.com>
    Systems Software Engineer  /  Connectivity Services Development
    InterXion, where the Internet lives <http://www.interxion.com/> 
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:20 2001
6315 messages in chronological order