Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers?

"Mark S. Edwards" <marke@muttsnuts.com> Tue, 30 March 2010 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <marke@muttsnuts.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 E06EF3A6A81 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 ENc-jhhwLvsp for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp113.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp113.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [66.196.116.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6420B3A6BF7 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 48767 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2010 14:49:20 -0000
Message-ID: <288331.47396.qm@smtp113.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Received: from Igor.muttsnuts.com (marke@86.179.115.223 with login) by smtp113.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2010 07:49:19 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: bRG7rdWswBCH1dgXoodv3R.kBjic
X-YMail-OSG: IrsTSEoVM1nQrvdv7fyD_Px163z4Fm3c7rWKKbLVELWlrOorMFppIL7EaJ3cHe7JB.BYh9Gr7S0ZEbUkY_aAN9nbGByVbGxST5en86nrt5SlZyG4_wnjakrN_HMZIDOcWe6CBWlsUDlUB4SSeAEaXyDJ.Tw_6bfBkrPbiEP0.owaTUovII952CkG45E5CwV0oww2uMaMiftrzjfxFgsBdks0jjtrGChd6ghxxJ1fO0hoGrue.ql8ldCgoEADtETBVjBEiZEqEQaGtKuopvxoHr6ejMRaNjXrAZEoCDlPmumvIMddyZJfTj3SbPxoMjtlBX6r.atzxSH.nu5SRTBODzBDCmaD2H9vkkfweFB3vmrsAQKkmdnNusLQ3Obi16qgR.rKyDMA2F0IFfMQWh4q1MNzWykcLxdYFbS3kA--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:49:11 +0100
To: <storm@ietf.org>
From: "Mark S. Edwards" <marke@muttsnuts.com>
In-Reply-To: <D8CEBB6AE9D43848BD2220619A43F3265391BE@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> <SNT129-W39116021288D2177842E5DE61F0@phx.gbl> <D8CEBB6AE9D43848BD2220619A43F3265391BE@M31.equallogic.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1219950781==.ALT"
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 14:51:12 -0000

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