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

    RE: StatSN and overlapped commands

    Require to do checking or not (how and if this is done is mostly an 
    implementation issue). If the target has decided to accept  recovery (and 
    there no equivalent of it in the FCP world) it better protect it's ITTs. 
    Obviously some implementations may be more sensitive to errors than others 
    and those will check.
    iSCSI already has an error code for this type of error - as we assumed 
    that this might happen and it would be more difficult for some targets to 
    live with the consequences of not checking.
    If you consider this as a mandatory part of the compliance package or not 
    is a question for the buyer to decide. I assume that the UNH package will 
    (today or at some point in the future) check if this error code is 
    generated properly and note it in the compliance sheets.
    As for your assumption that you might keep lingering only the Status of 
    the gone task - I already stated that this is not the case. If you accept 
    recovery you must keep around enough information to recover anything not 
    properly acked (and for some recovery level might end-up being asked to 
    reinstate the task on another connection).
    Sent by:
    08/08/2003 01:40
    Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL,
    RE: StatSN and overlapped commands
    I have done some checking. Even for tasks that are in progress, neither 
    the SCSI Architecture model nor iSCSI have any requirement that the target 
    check that task tags from the initiator are unique. It is up to the 
    initiator to ensure that the task tag is unique within the nexus. In the 
    Fibre Channel world, FCP actually has an explicit statement that the 
    target can rely on them being unique and isn't required to check for 
    It isn't the target's job to keep the initiator from messing up its use of 
    task tags. If an initiator isn't using tags properly, there are plenty of 
    other mistakes it can make that will cause problems and that the target 
    can't detect.
    Of course, as Bill and others have said, a target may check ITTs for 
    overlap even though it isn't required to.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Julian Satran []
    Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 1:26 PM
    Subject: RE: StatSN and overlapped commands
    If Status (if required) has to be sent with an associated ITT (it is the 
    only way an initiator has to associate a status with a task). If the ITT 
    happens to be that of a new task this association may be incorrect. Recall 
    that error scenarios can be complex (with some missing statuses and even 
    connection failover). 
    For all those reason a target accepting recovery must "protect" any ITT 
    included in unacknowledged status.
    Sent by:
    06/08/2003 21:02
    RE: StatSN and overlapped commands
    For recovery, the target has to remember the status, but that doesn't mean 
    it has to keep the task information around. It would have the status 
    message linked to StatSN but it would be typical to clear away any task 
    context when that message is generated. Remember that when things are very 
    busy it might get a single acknowledgement that acknowledges multiple 
    status messages from multiple tasks. It isn't efficient to have to go back 
    to do the task context clean up when the status ack comes. 
    It is the initiator's job to not shoot itself in the foot by issuing a new 
    command with the same task tag as one that it hasn't gotten status on yet. 
    For the target, once the status is generated, the task is gone. The status 
    message may still be there available for a resend, but the task is gone. I 
    don't see any requirement in iSCSI or SCSI to do anything other than that.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Julian Satran []
    Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:48 PM
    To: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)
    Subject: Re: StatSN and overlapped commands
    > Julian,
    > I agree that the initiator is misbehaving, but I don't agree that the 
    target should detect that misbehavior. The target SCSI layer thinks the 
    command was done when it generated the status. As David said, the target 
    keeps the status around so that it can resend it if requested by Status 
    SNACK. It doesn't need to keep track of the tag anymore at that point.
    > If the target had to generate an error when a command came with for a 
    tag before the status for a prior command with the same tag was 
    acknowledged, then it would have to clear the memory of tags when status 
    acks came in which is less efficient than doing it when posting the 
    > Pat
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Julian Satran []
    > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:56 AM
    > <snip>
    >>No, iSCSI at the target is retaining the SCSI status of the completed
    >>command for retransmission.  SCSI believes the command to be completed,
    >>and any retransmission request (e.g., Status SNACK) is not visible to
    >>SCSI at the target.  In this case "command recovery" does not execute
    >>any commands at the target; it just causes retransmission of the saved
    >>David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    >>EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    >>+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
    >>        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    > My only caveat to this would be that an initiator that reuses the 
    > Initiator Task Tag but does not acknowledge the reception of the status 
    > by an ExpSataSN is definitely misbehaving.
    > The target should not consider it as an implicit ack (as intermetiate 
    > status PDUs may have been lost - it should reject the command that 
    > reuses the Initiator Task Tag.
    > That is not necesarily related to the way an initiator maps SCSI tags to 
    > iSCSI tags - it is specific to iSCSI expectations about tag reuse.
    > You correctly stated that an iSCSI tag should not be reused before it's 
    > status is acknowledged but violating this rule is an iSCSI protocol 
    > error and not a SCSI error (overlapped command).
    > Julo
    The target has to remember the status the status for recovery - if both 
    I and T have agreed on recovery. If it drops it some recovery scenarios 
    won't work.
    You are right that when no recovery is agreed status can be dropped but 
    not so if recovery is agreed. And while within connection recovery is 
    not based on ITT a recovered status containing a wrong ITT is not a good 


Last updated: Fri Aug 08 02:19:25 2003
12802 messages in chronological order