Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

Despite the fact that I worked on the draft, I always thought markers
were silly and would be proven so over time.  Good to hear I was
actually right for once!

Steph

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mark S. Edwards <marke@muttsnuts.com> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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. Sign up now.
>
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list
> storm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
>
>