Re: [Ips] lun reset and r2t error handling

Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> Wed, 12 August 2009 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: ips@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ips@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B64E3A6909 for <ips@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z0pNt41Osd35 for <ips@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com (mtagate1.de.ibm.com [195.212.17.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413EB3A6805 for <ips@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.1]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7C3khQM005574 for <ips@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:46:43 GMT
Received: from d12av06.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av06.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.230]) by d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n7C3khqf3301534 for <ips@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:46:43 +0200
Received: from d12av06.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av06.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n7C3kge8014654 for <ips@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:46:43 +0200
Received: from d12mc102.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12mc102.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.114]) by d12av06.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id n7C3kg7D014651; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:46:42 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4A81DAEA.8080403@redhat.com>
References: <4A81DAEA.8080403@redhat.com>
To: Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 3BD6AD19:DD34E8FC-C2257610:00145B55; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008
From: Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF3BD6AD19.DD34E8FC-ONC2257610.00145B55-C2257610.0014C189@il.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:46:41 +0300
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D12MC102/12/M/IBM(Release 8.5|December 05, 2008) at 12/08/2009 06:46:41, Serialize complete at 12/08/2009 06:46:41
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0014BFBAC2257610_="
Cc: ips@ietf.org, open-iscsi <open-iscsi@googlegroups.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Ips] lun reset and r2t error handling
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:32:36 -0000

some answers in text

ips-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 11/08/2009 23:56:10:

> From:
> 
> Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>;
> 
> To:
> 
> ips@ietf.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>;, open-iscsi <open-
> iscsi@googlegroups.com>;
> 
> Date:
> 
> 11/08/2009 23:57
> 
> Subject:
> 
> [Ips] lun reset and r2t error handling
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> ips-bounces@ietf.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> For a single connection session with ERL=0 and without FastAbort, if the 

> initiator has sent a lun reset task management function and the target 
> has sent a R2T, is it ok for the target to send a task management 
> response with Function Complete, before the initiator has sent the 
> data-out pdus for the R2T? It looks like the reason the target will do 
> this is due to a internal target timeout (target did not get the 
> data-outs within some timeout period).
> 
> If the target does return the task management function with Function 
> Complete, should the initiator continue to respond to the R2Ts?
> 


The initiator doesn't have to send more data but since more data may be 
still in flight
it shouldn't harm to send a "terminating" Dataout. Target should behave OK 
in both cases.

> And one other question. In section 10.5.1, we have:
> 
>     The issuing initiator SHOULD however terminate (i.e., by setting the
>     F-bit to 1) these response sequences as quickly as possible.
> 
> Does this mean if we have sent a lun reset, and the target has sent a 
> R2T, should we be setting the F-bit in the continued data-out PDU so as 
> to end the transfer, even though actual data transfer has not been 
> completed entirely?
Yes
> 
> What if we do send all the data like normal, should that still be ok?
Yes - receivers are supposed to be lenient.
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> Ips@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips