Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text - version 4
"Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com> Wed, 26 September 2012 12:39 UTC
Return-Path: <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EE921F8817 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rqxMgva4g0lF for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2D721F86D1 for <storm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,490,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="694299660"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 26 Sep 2012 05:39:18 -0700
Received: from vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.240]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q8QCdHW6012739; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.6.102]) by vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:39:16 -0700
From: "Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight@netapp.com>
To: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka <cbm@chadalapaka.com>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text - version 4
Thread-Index: Ac2bNKguGPJW+zTbTTC2uDGdWEV2OAAGl/vwAAGNYXAAA3tHQAAIrqHwABYKaSA=
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:39:15 +0000
Message-ID: <FFEE311F0EC80C4EA64EC8757CAD0CD208EA63C2@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7120DE79578@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <E160851FCED17643AE5F53B5D4D0783A451DBBB6@BL2PRD0610MB361.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <E160851FCED17643AE5F53B5D4D0783A451DBBB6@BL2PRD0610MB361.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text - version 4
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:39:20 -0000
I'm concerned about this new link between Time2Wait and RESERVE state. Such a link has not previously existed. I don't think we should create such a linkage. Section 4.6.3.3 includes: .... In addition, the Logout Response indicates how long the target will continue to hold resources for recovery (e.g., command execution that continues on a new connection).... This and many other places where Time2Wait and Time2Retain are discussed, the points all have to do with command continuation; no mention of I_T state, or RESERVE state, or mode pages, or anything else. Section 7.5 says: .... Time2Wait is the initial "respite time" before attempting an explicit/implicit Logout for the CID in question or task reassignment for the affected tasks (if any).... Or, task reassignment of affected tasks; with no mention of I_T state. Section 7.6 ties the termination of tasks to the Time2Wait / Time2Retain timers. Section 11.14.5 makes the same statements about the task termination linkage to those timers. Section 11.15.3 says those timers are "...the minimum amount of time, in seconds, to wait before attempting task reassignment.". Section 8.3 defines Session State. And there is one sentence that I can find in all 345 pages that associates that session state with these timers. It is in section 11.15.4 where it says: If it is the last connection of a session, the whole session state is discarded after Time2Retain. I don't see anywhere that these timers are associated with any SCSI state, or with the RESERVE state. Attempting to tie RESERVE state to these timers is a NEW requirement. Our goal here was specifically to NOT create any new requirements. We do not want to impact existing iSCSI implementations. Could we associate the action that occurred with the observable behavior the host sees? I don't like putting SCSI layer stuff in a transport layer spec, but it should just be informative. Something like: If the initiator receives a UA: 29/00 or 29/01 or 29/04 then the RESERVE state has been lost. (Maybe 29/04 belongs in a RESERVE state unknown list). If the initiator receives a UA: 29/07 then the RESERVE state has been preserved. I didn't list 29/02 or 29/03 or 29/05 or 29/06 since I view those as Parallel SCSI specific. We can debate which items belong in which list, but would this kind of observable behavior approach be better than a new requirement? FYI - I didn't invent this; I copied it from SAM-5r11 (sub-clause 6.3.4) where it states it as a requirement on the target - that when an I_T NEXUS LOSS event occurs, if the state is retained, 29/07 is returned, and if the state is not retained, then 29/01 is returned. We also don't want to create any new requirement now in this consolidated draft that conflicts with this SAM-5 text, since we will eventually have to comply with SAM-5 and its follow-ons. Another approach would be to ignore this for the consolidated draft, and force it into the iSCSI-SAM draft - which references SAM-4 and SAM-5 where I_T Nexus loss is already defined and the above text already exists. Fred -----Original Message----- From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:39 PM To: Black, David; storm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text - version 4 Looks good to me overall. Two minor comments: 1) For 4.4.3.1, I have replaced the current sentence with the following one (instead of the proposed): That is, it should reinstate the session via iSCSI session reinstatement (Section 6.3.5) or continue via session continuation (Section 6.3.6). 2) For proposed new text, I have tweaked the version 4 sentence below, keeping the existing implementations in view: VERSION 4: The Time2Wait and Time2Retain timeout values (see Section 7.55) apply to retention of reserve/release reservation state after iSCSI session failure because that state is part of the I_T Nexus state. VERSION 5: Instead, implementations are strongly encouraged to apply the Time2Wait and Time2Retain timeout values (see Section 7.5) to manage retention of reserve/release reservation state after iSCSI session failure because that state is part of the I_T nexus state. Thanks. Mallikarjun -----Original Message----- From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Black, David Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:39 PM To: storm@ietf.org Subject: [storm] FW: SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text - version 4 version 4 changes: More changes for Mallikarjun's comments, mostly a rewrite of the first additional caveat bullet. I've chosen not to reference Annex B of SPC-4 as that seems a bit far afield for a SCSI transport standard like iSCSI. version 3 changes: Responding to Mallikarjun's comments (plus some more edits) - > 1) IMHO, opening sentence of "I_T nexus state includes reservation state" > is a little too broad, I removed that sentence, removed I_T Nexus from new section title and tweaked the persistent reservation text to talk about state in general as opposed to I_T Nexus state in particular. > 2) Hard reset is not an LU reset - it is either an iSCSI Target Warm > Reset, or (more likely) an iSCSI Target Cold Reset. In either case, > any of the three resets should clear the reserve/release state. I removed the word "hard" - as you noted, an LU reset is sufficient to remove a reserve/release reservation. > 3) Should use Time2Retain+Time2Wait, not Default Time2Wait Brilliant minds think alike - I got to that one in version 2 ;-). > 4) Session recovery does not necessarily preserve the I_T nexus state > (recovery may not occur within Time2Wait+Time2Retain, and may not use > the same ISID when it occurs), but session reinstatement and session > continuation certainly should. I changed "session recovery" to "session reinstatement". > 5) Should articulate the underlying linkage between Time2Retain (an > iSCSI concept), and the reserve/release state (a SCSI state). I believe I also got to that one in version 2. version 2 changes: I moved a paragraph break in response to Ralph's comments, and rewrote the first additional consideration to reference the connection timeout values in general. I also found some minor problems that need correction in Section 4.6.3.3 (see end of this message). --- version 4 follows --- <WG chair hat off> Here's an initial attempt to propose text to deal with the reserve/ release topic in the consolidated iSCSI draft. Please comment, correct, suggest edits, etc. The new text would be a new section 4.4.3.2 that would follow 4.4.3.1: 4.4.3.1. I_T Nexus State Certain nexus relationships contain an explicit state (e.g., initiator-specific mode pages) that may need to be preserved by the device server [SAM2] in a logical unit through changes or failures in the iSCSI layer (e.g., session failures). In order for that state to be restored, the iSCSI initiator should reestablish its session (re-login) to the same Target Portal Group using the previous ISID. That is, it should perform session recovery as described in Chapter 6. This is because the SCSI initiator port identifier and the SCSI target port identifier (or relative target port) form the datum that the SCSI logical unit device server uses to identify the I_T nexus. ------------------------------- First, for clarity, the following change should be made in the above 4.4.3.1 text to better identify the recovery mechanism: OLD That is, it should perform session recovery as described in Chapter 6. NEW That is, it should recover the session via connection reinstatement as described in Section 6.3.4. END I believe that a lower-case "should" remains appropriate for this text. ----------------------------------- NEW TEXT (second draft): 4.4.3.2. Reservations There are two reservation management methods defined in the SCSI standards, reserve/release reservations, based on the RESERVE and RELEASE commands [SPC2], and persistent reservations, based on the PERSISTENT RESERVE IN and PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT commands [SPC3]. Reserve/release reservations are obsolete [SPC3] and SHOULD NOT be used; persistent reservations SHOULD be used instead. State for persistent reservations is required to persist through changes and failures at the iSCSI layer that result in I_T Nexus failures, see [SPC3] for details and specific requirements. In contrast, [SPC2] does not specify detailed persistence requirements for reserve/release reservation state after an I_T Nexus failure. Nonetheless, when reserve/release reservations are supported by an iSCSI target, the preferred implementation approach is to preserve reserve/release reservation state as part of the I_T Nexus state for iSCSI session reinstatement (see Section 6.3.5) or session continuation (see Section 6.3.6). Two additional caveats apply to reserve/release reservations: - When connection failure causes the iSCSI session to fail, and the session is not reinstated or continued, target retention of that session's reserve/release reservation state for an extended period of time may require the initiator to issue a reset (e.g., LOGICAL UNIT RESET, see section 11.5) in order to remove that reservation state. The Time2Wait and Time2Retain timeout values (see Section 7.55) apply to retention of reserve/release reservation state after iSCSI session failure because that state is part of the I_T Nexus state. The need for resets in this scenario may be reduced by suitable selection of values for these two timeouts. - Reserve/release reservations may not behave as expected when persistent reservations are also used on the same logical unit; see the discussion of "Exceptions to SPC-2 RESERVE and RELEASE behavior" in [SPC4]. ----------------------- Reference impacts: both [SPC2] and [SPC3] need to be normative references, but [SPC4] can be an informative reference. ------------------------- I deliberately used "the preferred iSCSI implementation approach" wording for reserve/release reservation state preservation requirements, as SPC-2 is vague on this topic and I'm rather uncomfortable with placing a requirement as strong as a "SHOULD" on an obsolete mechanism that "SHOULD NOT" be used. --------------- New problem in Section 4.6.3.3 - in this text: The Logout response indicates that the connection or session cleanup is completed and no other responses will arrive on the connection (if received on the logging out connection). In addition, the Logout Response indicates how long the target will continue to hold resources for recovery (e.g., command execution that continues on a new connection) in the text key Time2Retain and how long the initiator must wait before proceeding with recovery in the text key Time2Wait. Time2Wait and Time2Retain are not text keys - they're binary fields in the Logout Response PDU. Two changes are in order: - "text key Time2Retain" -> "Time2Retain field" - "text key Time2Wait" -> "Time2Wait field" Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black@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 _______________________________________________ storm mailing list storm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm
- [storm] FW: SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Black, David
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Knight, Frederick
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Black, David
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Knight, Frederick
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Black, David
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Knight, Frederick
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Julian Satran
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Julian Satran
- Re: [storm] SPC-2 reserve/release: Proposed text … Julian Satran