Re: rationale to send PDUs in increasing CmdSn onsingleconnection

Boy, that was dumb of me, I didn't even notice that statement in the very email I sent out.

Eddy
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Julian Satran 
  To: William Studenmund 
  Cc: Ips ; Eddy Quicksall 
  Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Ips] rationale to send PDUs in increasing CmdSn onsingleconnection



  yes it is must and besides being pointless sending out of order would break some assumptions about detecting missing items (as Pat has nicely outlined in her note). 

  Julo 


        From:  William Studenmund <[email protected]>  
        To:  Eddy Quicksall <[email protected]>  
        Cc:  Parav Pandit <[email protected]>, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Ips <[email protected]>  
        Date:  19/10/07 19:07  
        Subject:  Re: [Ips] rationale to send PDUs in increasing CmdSn        onsingle connection 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Eddy Quicksall wrote: 

  Julian, below you said "no" to #2. But is there a restriction in the RFC (maybe I just don't remember it)? I agree it has no practical value but I have used it to test my re-ordering logic with only one connection. 

  Parav quoted a MUST from the RFC on this, so I'd call that a restriction. :-) 

  I agree that it's a reasonable thing to do to test re-ordering logic. But I think that test environments don't count in that to be a good test of error handling, they _must_ break the spec. :-) Otherwise it's exceptionally difficult to reproducibly test how devices handle error conditions. :-) 

  Take care, 

  Bill 

  ---- Original Message ----- 
  From: Julian Satran 
  To: Parav Pandit 
  Cc: [email protected] 
  Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:53 AM 
  Subject: Re: [Ips] rationale to send PDUs in increasing CmdSn onsingle connection 



  Parav Pandit <[email protected]> wrote on 31/08/2007 12:52:04:

  > Hi,
  >  
  > RFC 3720, section 3.2.2.1 says 
  > 
  > "On any connection, the iSCSI initiator MUST send the
  > commands in increasing order of CmdSN, except for
  > commands that are retransmitted due to digest error
  > recovery and connection recovery. "
  > 
  > (Assuming Single TCP connection ISCSI session)
  > 
  > 1. I interpret above 3.2.2.1 statement as 
  > SCSI layer gives SCSI commands to the ISCSI stack in
  > the order of Cmd-1 and Cmd-2. 
  > Cmd-1 will have CmdSn = 10.
  > Cmd-2 will have CmdSn = 11.
  > ISCSI stack CAN send PDUs to the TCP layer in
  > following order ONLY.
  > PDU-1 with Cmd-1.
  > PDU-2 with Cmd-2.
  > 
  > Is this correct interpretation?
  > Or
  > 
  Yes 
  > 2. On a SINGLE connection can ISCSI stack send the 
  > PDU-1 with Cmd-2 followed by 
  > PDU-2 with Cmd-1?
  > 
  NO
  > Assuming the answer of the question #2 is No,
  > 
  > 3. If there are multiple connections in a session then
  > command MAY any way reach out of order. And targets
  > need to wait for the previous expected commands.
  > 
  > So targets will receive out of order ISCSI PDUs from
  > the TCP layer and ISCSI stack handles them.
  > 
  > So then why initiators have restriction of sending
  > command in the increasing order of CmdSn on SINGLE TCP
  > connection?
  > 
  To simplify recovery and to...
  > Is it to simplify the implementation of targets
  > supporting only single TCP connection?
  > 
  > 

  and there was no visible motivation for out of order commands on a single connection 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Ips mailing list
  [email protected]
  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips