Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

"Paul Koning" <Paul_Koning@Dell.com> Tue, 30 March 2010 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Paul_Koning@Dell.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 E20BF3A67C1 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.128
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.261, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TrK2Dkax15y2 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com (aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com [143.166.82.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068293A6BC2 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Loopcount0: from 12.110.134.31
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.51,334,1267423200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="415134206"
Received: from unknown (HELO M31.equallogic.com) ([12.110.134.31]) by aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2010 09:22:38 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CAD014.725EE764"
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:22:35 -0400
Message-ID: <D8CEBB6AE9D43848BD2220619A43F3265391BE@M31.equallogic.com>
In-Reply-To: <SNT129-W39116021288D2177842E5DE61F0@phx.gbl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?
Thread-Index: AcrQD2Q9Z1FzGXPlRXanhpoOLgz3ZQABIaKw
References: <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB02162B4B@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com><690958.35528.qm@smtp111.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <SNT131-ds389E5D120CA34D81D341FA01F0@phx.gbl>, <D8CEBB6AE9D43848BD2220619A43F326539198@M31.equallogic.com> <SNT129-W39116021288D2177842E5DE61F0@phx.gbl>
From: "Paul Koning" <Paul_Koning@Dell.com>
To: "Asgeir Eiriksson" <asgeir_eiriksson@hotmail.com>, <cbm@chadalapaka.com>, <marke@muttsnuts.com>, <storm@ietf.org>
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 14:22:43 -0000

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.
<http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL
:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2>