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.
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Asgeir Eiriksson
- [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim Black_David
- Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] Draft minutes from Anaheim Knight, Frederick
- [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Paul Koning
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Paul Koning
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Stephen Bailey
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Asgeir Eiriksson
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? William Stouder-Studenmund
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Julian Satran
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Asgeir Eiriksson
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Pat Thaler
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mark Bakke (mbakke)
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? David Harrington
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] Removing iSCSI Markers? Black_David
- [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Black_David
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? david.black
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? David Harrington
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? David Harrington
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? David Harrington
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? Mark S. Edwards
- Re: [storm] iSCSI feature removal: SLP ? David Harrington