Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

Asgeir Eiriksson <asgeir_eiriksson@hotmail.com> Tue, 30 March 2010 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <asgeir_eiriksson@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691663A6B7C for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.132
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 m1ifRB8MCYpR for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc3-s4.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc3-s4.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A08B3A6B67 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT129-W39 ([65.55.90.135]) by snt0-omc3-s4.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:23:53 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT129-W39116021288D2177842E5DE61F0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c091d44e-da5f-449a-bbe0-df6962dcdf2a_"
X-Originating-IP: [85.220.48.235]
From: Asgeir Eiriksson <asgeir_eiriksson@hotmail.com>
To: <paul_koning@dell.com>, <cbm@chadalapaka.com>, <marke@muttsnuts.com>, <storm@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:23:52 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <D8CEBB6AE9D43848BD2220619A43F326539198@M31.equallogic.com>
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com><690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <SNT131-ds389E5D120CA34D81D341FA01F0@phx.gbl>, <D8CEBB6AE9D43848BD2220619A43F326539198@M31.equallogic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2010 13:23:53.0327 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E159FF0:01CAD00C]
Subject: Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:24:00 -0000

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
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
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