Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests

Caitlin Bestler <cait@asomi.com> Tue, 24 March 2009 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <cait@asomi.com>
X-Original-To: rddp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rddp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CBB3A68A7 for <rddp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 WagGJqpfn0xB for <rddp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CB53A68A5 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 7703 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2009 23:46:04 -0000
Received: from imac.asomi.com (cait@asomi.com@[66.92.48.27]) (envelope-sender <cait@asomi.com>) by mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <rdr@iol.unh.edu>; 24 Mar 2009 23:46:04 -0000
Message-ID: <49C970BC.1030801@asomi.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:46:04 -0700
From: Caitlin Bestler <cait@asomi.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@iol.unh.edu>
References: <52130.1237926850@asomi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903241702320.25436@postal.iol.unh.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903241702320.25436@postal.iol.unh.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rddp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rddp] [Ips] Storage Maintenance (storm) BOF reminder & requests
X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" <rddp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rddp>
List-Post: <mailto:rddp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:45:14 -0000

Robert D. Russell wrote:
> 
> 
> In any case, it might be useful to have a "Standard"
> way of bringing up initial connections in RDMA mode
> without the necessity to go through the negotiation.
> This may be faster, and in many situations it is
> already known that RDMA mode will be used, so the
> transition is just an extra, unnecessary step.
> 

Any extra unnecesary step is strictly in the local API.
Setting up an RDMA connection requires some exchange of
ULP information so that the two RDMA endpoints can be
configured compatibly (the server end, for example would
not know which Protection Domain to assign until it knew
who it was connecting with).

There is no real overhead in allowing an indefinite amount
of TCP exchange before the MPA Request/Response if you don't
use it.

In retrospect, if we had been confident that iSER would be
the only ULP requesting this capability then it might have
made sense to have iSER change. But the complexity of this
option will always be there, so the only real issue is if
it is adding round-trips or network bandwidth.

If the ULP wants to jump directly to the MPA Request/Response
it is free to do so, and there aren't any real optimizations
from that exchange that would justify a change.

The one exception is the one David already identified: MPI
and other cluster protocols really need a "nop" at the MPA
layer so that the first message from the active side requirement
of MPA can be met without involving the application.