Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

Asgeir,

Yes, I do understand and remember all the arguments.  Indeed, I 
remember one of Randy's theoretical presentations positing that a 
marker aware 10GB offload NIC might only require as little as 2K 
onboard buffering RAM.

The point is, that at least for iSCSI the technology that arrived 
seems to marginalised the need for anyone to implement 
markers.  Given the fact that running code creates IETF consensus we 
have an opportunity at this time to remove unnecessary complications, 
markers are a candidate for being made optional or even being removed 
completely.

Personally I would be happy to see them removed.  My original note on 
this topic was to try to be a good citizen by asking anyone who might 
be affected, or know someone who would be affected, to speak up.

Mark.

At 16:28 30/03/2010, Asgeir Eiriksson wrote:
>Paul, Mark
>
>The main selling point for markers is that they enable out or order placement
>(on receive) while preserving in order completions and markers 
>therefore have the
>potential of decreasing buffering requirements in RNIC and to a less extent in
>iSCSI HBA.
>
>'Asgeir
>
>
>----------
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:49:11 +0100
>To: storm@ietf.org
>From: marke@muttsnuts.com
>Subject: Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
>
>Paul,
>
>That's pretty much my recollection, too.
>
>One of those things that was thought to be a reasonable solution to 
>a foreseeable change in the technology.  In the end, the technology 
>found a different solution.
>
>They were fascinating presentations, though.
>
>Mark.
>
>At 15:22 30/03/2010, Paul Koning wrote:
>Thanks Asgeir.
>
>As I recall, the original idea behind markers is to make it possible 
>to build 10G HBAs that can run at wire speed, which was believed to 
>be impossible otherwise.
>
>The subsequent record indicates that this was in fact not the case; 
>10G HBAs are feasible and have been built without resorting to 
>markers.  There is no other reason for using markers.  So if the one 
>reason that they were thought to be needed in fact turned out not to 
>be real, the obvious thing to do is to remove the unused 
>complications from the spec.
>
>I suppose one could argue that, placed in an appendix and "optional 
>to implement" they do no harm.  That's a fair point.  If there is 
>still a chance that they will turn out to be needed in the future we 
>may want to go that way.  I personally would bet against that chance.
>
>                 paul
>
>From: Asgeir Eiriksson [ mailto:asgeir_eiriksson@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:24 AM
>To: Paul Koning; cbm@chadalapaka.com; marke@muttsnuts.com; storm@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
>
>Hello Paul,
>
>The Chelsio RNIC do support the marker feature, but as far as I know 
>the feature
>has never been used in the field, and it isn't supported by all RNIC
>implementations.
>
>I periodically ask our AE and developers about this feature and so 
>far the answer
>is that no one uses it, and no one is asking for it (4 years of data 
>at this point).
>
>Regards,
>
>Asgeir Eiriksson
>CTO
>Chelsio Communications Inc.
>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:01:49 -0400
> > From: Paul_Koning@Dell.com
> > To: cbm@chadalapaka.com; marke@muttsnuts.com; storm@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
> >
> > I sure would like markers to go away. Rumors of their use are somewhat
> > interesting, but substantiated data would be more so.
> >
> > paul
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [ mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > > Of Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
> > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:33 PM
> > > To: 'Mark S. Edwards'; storm@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
> > >
> > > Just to clarify...
> > >
> > > > On another removal topic, I seem to recall that Mallikarjun also
> > said
> > > > that he was removing markers.
> > >
> > > I had only said that it's one of the items I had heard prior requests
> > > on
> > > (that it be removed). Thanks for initiating the list discussion
> > > though!
> > >
> > > > but I do wonder if this will affect any HBA implementations ?
> > >
> > > Good question, I don't know. HBA vendors, especially iSCSI/iSER/RNIC
> > > "roto-tilled" implementations, please chime in.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mallikarjun
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [ mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > > Behalf Of
> > > Mark
> > > > S. Edwards
> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:56 AM
> > > > To: storm@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the feature removal discussion, can I add SLP to the list
> > ?
> > > >
> > > > The RFC 3721 states
> > > >
> > > > "iSCSI equipment that
> > > > need discovery functions beyond SendTargets should at least
> > > > implement SLP, and then consider iSNS when extended discovery
> > > > management capabilities are required such as in larger
> > storage
> > > > networks. It should be noted that since iSNS will support
> > > SLP,
> > > > iSNS can be used to help manage the discovery information
> > > returned
> > > > by SLP."
> > > >
> > > > The implication is that targets and initiators should expect to find
> > > > support for SLP before considering iSNS.
> > > >
> > > > I remember our first iSCSI appliance and we spent ages trying to get
> > > > SLP working because it the above wording effectively made it
> > > > mandatory. SLP turned out to be a complete bust and was effectively
> > > > killed off when Microsoft refused to support it in their initiator
> > > > and in their target logo tests.
> > > >
> > > > The result is that today I doubt you could find a target or
> > initiator
> > > > out there supporting SLP.
> > > >
> > > > For anybody that does still implement SLP we could change the
> > wording
> > > > for SLP a little to remove the implied hierarchy, or just admit that
> > > > running code has created IETF consensus.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On another removal topic, I seem to recall that Mallikarjun also
> > said
> > > > that he was removing markers. I don't particularly object to this
> > > > but I do wonder if this will affect any HBA implementations ?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Mark.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 06:59 27/03/2010, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> > > > >Draft minutes are attached - please comment, correct, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >Also, in the absence of objection on this mailing list, decisions
> > > > >recorded in the minutes are considered to be the rough consensus of
> > > > >this WG, *except* that two issues were identified as sufficiently
> > > > >important to discuss separately on the list (see separate
> > messages):
> > > > > - Text negotiation key for new iSCSI features (discussion
> > > > > in progress)
> > > > > - Features to remove from iSCSI (discussion to be started)
> > > > >
> > > > >Many thanks to Craig Carlson for taking notes during the meeting.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks,
> > > > >--David
> > > > >----------------------------------------------------
> > > > >David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> > > > >EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
> > > > >+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> > > > >black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> > > > >----------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >storm mailing list
> > > > >storm@ietf.org
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > storm mailing list
> > > > storm@ietf.org
> > > > 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > storm mailing list
> > > storm@ietf.org
> > > 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
> > _______________________________________________
> > storm mailing list
> > storm@ietf.org
> > 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
>
>----------
>Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more 
>from your inbox. 
><http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2>Sign 
>up now.
>
>
>
>----------
>Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from 
>your inbox. 
><http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1>Learn 
>More.