SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI - Synch an Steering Appendix - Markers & COWS



     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
    Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 2:19 PM
    To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: iSCSI - Synch an Steering Appendix - Markers & COWS


    Dear colleagues,

    Attached are the two versions of the Synch and Steering appendix that we are considering.

    During the SLC meeting we tentatively agreed that we will consider the markers (ugly but workable) and a new alternative Constant Overhead Word stuffing that I had to draft.

    We also agreed that we will strive to have only one such option and we would like to have it required somewhat stronger (sender should provide it if receiver wants it).  
     
    I believe there is also a third alternative under consideration which is a length/key
    encoding which is considerably simpler and easier to implement.  The primary
    objection to this mechanism is due to its probabilistic nature, however this
    objection seems based more on superstition than on any analysis showing
    that the overall reliability of the system is in any way compromised by
    the probabilistic nature.
     
    In any case, my understanding is that this is also under consideration
    in TSV working group, so I would hope that IPS will defer to their
    choice and not try to go it alone regarding the decision.
     
    However, I would strongly object to the "SHOULD implement".
    I believe this should be made a "SHOULD implement" only
    after the benefit of this technique has been demonstrated.
    I do concede that there are one or two vendors who have
    view graphs claiming that "Synch and Steering" layer will allow
    them to build a more cost effective product.  However after doing
    a considerable amount of study on iSCSI HBA design, I have serious
    doubts about the viability of this approach.  I am more than happy to
    be proven wrong on this, but the operative word is "proven".
     
    I am bothered that a small minority of implementors want everyone
    else to de-optimize their designs so that they can optimize their
    own, especially when I suspect the approach is technically flawed
    to begin with.
     
    And, if the "Sync and Steering" approach is successful, it will quickly
    become a de-facto standard anyway, so I would urge the IETF
    to remain a bit more neutral on this for now.
     
    Any comments/questions are welcome.


    Happy holidays and a peaceful and prosperous 2002,
    Julo  
     
    Thanks for considering my coments, and best to all as well,
     - Jim
     
     



Home

Last updated: Wed Dec 26 23:18:02 2001
8206 messages in chronological order