SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI: Use of the A bit



    I think that what Santosh and others have stated is the correct think to do
    for initiators.  If the revovery level is 0 and the A bit is set then the
    initiator is quite with in its rights to ignore the A bit (If the target is
    at fault then penalise the target and not the initiator).
    
    IMHO changing the spec to make it more specific is not the right thing and
    it could lead to inter operability problems.  However, I do think something
    needs to be added so I propose adding the statement:
    
    "If ErrorRecoveryLevel=0 then the initiator MAY ignore the A bit (i.e.
    assume A=0)".
    
    One could argue for the MAY to be a MUST but if there is a kind initiator
    out there then let it do its stuff - it can only help the rogue target.
    
    Matthew
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Rod Harrison [mailto:rod.harrison@windriver.com]
    Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:27 AM
    To: John Hufferd
    Cc: Eddy Quicksall; BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2); ips@ece.
    cmu. edu (E-mail)
    Subject: RE: iSCSI: Use of the A bit
    
    
    John,
    
    	Actually 9.7.2 says almost exactly that ...
    
    	"For sessions with ErrorRecoveryLevel 1 or higher, the target sets
    this bit to 1 to indicate that it requests a positive acknowledgement
    from the initiator for the data received."
    
    	We've interpreted that to mean our initiator should ignore the A bit
    if ErrorRecoveryLevel is 0.
    
    	Having said that it is very easy to support just the positive form
    of
    SNACK, so I would have no objection to removing the A bits current
    link to ErrorRecoveryLevel.
    
    	- Rod
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    John Hufferd
    Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:12 AM
    To: Rod Harrison
    Cc: Eddy Quicksall; BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2); ips@ece.
    cmu. edu (E-mail)
    Subject: RE: iSCSI: Use of the A bit
    
    
    
    Actually it does not actually say that.  It says "This is limited to
    sessions that support error recovery and is implemented through the A
    bit
    ..."
    
    I know what I am about to say, is nit picking, but ....
    ErrorRecoveryLevel=0 is an error recovery technique.
    
    Having said that, we probably should just change that statement to
    "This is
    implemented through the A bit ..."
    
    
    .
    .
    .
    John L. Hufferd
    Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
    IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
    Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
    Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
    Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
    
    
    "Rod Harrison" <rod.harrison@windriver.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 03/13/2002
    01:05:51 PM
    
    Sent by:    owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    
    
    To:    "Eddy Quicksall" <Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com>,
    "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW
           (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <matthew_burbridge@hp.com>, "ips@ece.
    cmu.
           edu (E-mail)" <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    cc:
    Subject:    RE: iSCSI: Use of the A bit
    
    
    
    Eddy,
    
     You were right first time, in draft 11 section 2.5.1.5 paragraph 5
    and 9.7.2 state that the A-bit is only supported if ErrorRecoveryLevel
    is 1 or higher.
    
     - Rod
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    Eddy Quicksall
    Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:03 PM
    To: BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2); ips@ece. cmu. edu
    (E-mail)
    Subject: RE: iSCSI: Use of the A bit
    
    
    Then my only concern is that the initiator may ignore the A bit if it
    deems that the bit is being set aggressively.
    
    If it ignored it, then the target would be stalled waiting for he ACK.
    
    Eddy
    -----Original Message-----
    From: BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
    [mailto:matthew_burbridge@hp.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:39 PM
    To: 'Eddy Quicksall'; ips@ece. cmu. edu (E-mail)
    Subject: RE: iSCSI: Use of the A bit
    Importance: High
    
    
    Eddy,
    
    The target is quite within its rights to use the A bit when at
    recovery level 0.  If the session is re-established due to recovery
    7.11.4 then the relevant command is aborted anyway and so there is no
    reason to keep hold of the data any way: With recovery level 0 there
    is no recovery mechanism that requires the target to keep the data.
    Therefore the A bit is redundant when the recovery level is 0.
    
    The spec says that the initiator MUST issue a SNACK if the A bit is
    set.  However, the MaxBurstSize restriction is there to prevent the
    initiator from having to send a SNACK on every PDU in the case where a
    target inadvertently sets the A bit in (for example) every data in
    PDU. The target may set the A bit more often than the MaxBurstSize but
    it should not expect a SNACK more often than this.
    
    Matthew Burbridge
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 3:12 PM
    To: ips@ece. cmu. edu (E-mail)
    Subject: iSCSI: Use of the A bit
    
    
    Here is a case that I want to go over and if there is not already a
    solution, I think a refinement to the A bit could solve it.
    
    The problem is that a target (perhaps an iSCSI disk drive) does not
    have enough memory to transfer the full READ request so it must read
    from the medium as much as it can, transmit that, when that
    transmission is known to be good, read the next bunch, transmit that
    and so on.
    
    The problem we have is that the target must keep the buffer around
    until the transfer has been "ack'd" via ExpStatSN. But that status
    can't be sent because all of the requested data has not been sent. So
    the target would have to refuse to do the command.
    
    I was going to use the A bit for this thinking it would force the
    initiator to give an "ack" but our current wording does not make this
    a sure fire thing:
    
    1) The initiator may not want to run at ErrorRecoveryLevel 1.
    2) The initiator may ignore the A bit if it deems that the bit is
    being set aggressively.
    3) The target may set the A bit no more frequently than MaxBurstSize.
    
    Comments?
    
    mailto:Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com
    
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Thu Mar 14 09:21:38 2002
9114 messages in chronological order