SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI Reqts: In-Order Delivery



    Focusing solely on the discussion needed to resolve the
    (last call) issue in the requirements draft:
    
    (A) Charles suggests that "ordered delivery of SCSI commands"
    	should include task management commands.  That
    	was the intent of the proposal and words should be
    	added to make this clear.  Section 7.3 of the -06
    	version of the main iSCSI document contains an
    	initial version of a description of how task management
    	commands can be executed immediately but have the
    	effects they would have had if delivered in order.
    
    (B) Doug is concerned that the task management response
    	may arrive before the responses to one or more
    	commands that were affected by the task management
    	command.  While his technical concern is valid,
    	and has/is being discussed, I don't think foreclosing
    	that discussion by requiring session-wide
    	synchronization of responses in the requirements
    	document is the right thing to do.  Hence I would
    	not change the proposal to require such synchronization.
    
    Thanks,
    --David
    
    p.s. Here's the proposal and brief Rationale:
    
    > > So, let me try the following proposal to resolve this issue/objection:
    > >
    > > (1) MUST provide ordered delivery of SCSI commands from
    > > 	the initiator to the target in the absence of transport
    > > 	errors visible to iSCSI (e.g., iSCSI CRC failure,
    > > 	unexpected TCP connection closure).
    > > (2) MUST specify the ability to preserve ordered delivery
    > > 	of SCSI commands even in the presence of transport
    > > 	errors.  A mechanism MUST be provided to allow
    > > 	Initiators and Targets to negotiate this preservation
    > > 	on a per-session or finer granularity basis,
    > >
    > > The Rationale for (1) is the combination of the SAM2 expectation
    > > plus the fact that there are situations in which disks expect
    > > this ordering in the absence of mechanisms like CRN that can
    > > enforce it.  The Rationale for (2) is to provide support
    > > analogous to FCP-2 - this should be sufficient for tapes to
    > > obtain the behavior they require.
    > 
    ---------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ---------------------------------------------------
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:57 2001
6315 messages in chronological order