Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

["Mark Bakke (mbakke)" <[e-mail]>]

Cisco doesn't use markers, either, and has no plans to do so.  I agree
that with the RDMA/iSER work that could be used similar purposes,
there's no need for them in the iSCSI protocol.

 

Mark

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:39 PM
To: Mark S. Edwards; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

 

We also don't use markers.

 

I don't recall Randy's presentation, but markers only partially allow
out of order placement. If you didn't receive the header of the PDU, you
can't place. By the time you take that into account plus the cost of
implementing markers, they aren't worth whatever memory savings they
might allow. And for various reasons, a 10G offload NIC needs a lot more
than 2K RAM.

 

Regards,

Pat

 

________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Mark S. Edwards
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:22 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 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: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
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.  Thats 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:[e-mail]] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:24 AM

To: Paul Koning; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]

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: [e-mail]

> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

> 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: [e-mail] [ mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf

> > Of Mallikarjun Chadalapaka

> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:33 PM

> > To: 'Mark S. Edwards'; [e-mail]

> > 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: [e-mail] [ mailto:[e-mail]] On

> > Behalf Of

> > Mark

> > > S. Edwards

> > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:56 AM

> > > To: [e-mail]

> > > 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, [e-mail] 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

> > > >[phone] FAX: [phone]

> > > >[e-mail] Mobile: [phone]

> > > >----------------------------------------------------

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >_______________________________________________

> > > >storm mailing list

> > > >[e-mail]

> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

> > >

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > storm mailing list

> > > [e-mail]

> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

> > 

> > _______________________________________________

> > storm mailing list

> > [e-mail]

> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

> _______________________________________________

> storm mailing list

> [e-mail]

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

________________________________

Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from
your inbox. Sign up now.
<http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL
:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2> 

 

________________________________

Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
inbox. Learn More.
<http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL
:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1>