draft-ietf-ips-iser-00 Mike Ko November 8, 2004

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Re-INVITE Handling draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00.txt
Advertisements

A Study of iSCSI Extensions for RDMA (iSER)
IPC (Interprocess Communication)
Message Queues COMP3017 Advanced Databases Dr Nicholas Gibbins –
Transport Layer – TCP (Part1) Dr. Sanjay P. Ahuja, Ph.D. Fidelity National Financial Distinguished Professor of CIS School of Computing, UNF.
LOCAL AREA NETWORKS. LOGICAL LINK CONTROL LLC is concerned with the transmission of a link- level PDU (Protocol Data Unit)between two stations Addressing.
August 02, 2004Mallikarjun Chadalapaka, HP1 iSCSI/RDMA: Overview of DA and iSER Mallikarjun Chadalapaka HP.
1 6/22/ :39 Chapter 9Fiber Channel1 Rivier College CS575: Advanced LANs Chapter 9: Fibre Channel.
Error Checking continued. Network Layers in Action Each layer in the OSI Model will add header information that pertains to that specific protocol. On.
1 Albert Ferrer-Florit, Steve Parkes Space Technology Centre University of Dundee QoS for SpaceWire networks SpW-RT prototyping.
March 7, 2005MOBIKE WG, IETF 621 Mobility Protocol Options for IKEv2 (MOPO-IKE) Pasi Eronen.
ISCSI and SEP Fall SCSI Concepts The endpoint of most SCSI commands is a "logical unit" (LU) Examples of logical units include hard drives,
1 Chapter 16 Protocols and Protocol Layering. 2 Protocol  Agreement about communication  Specifies  Format of messages (syntax)  Meaning of messages.
ISER on SCTP & IB draft-hufferd-ips-iser-sctp-ib-00.txt Generalizations to iSER specification John Hufferd Mike Ko Yaron Haviv.
(Business) Process Centric Exchanges
McGraw-Hill©The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2004 Data Link Control and Protocols.
2000 년 11 월 20 일 전북대학교 분산처리실험실 TCP Flow Control (nagle’s algorithm) 오 남 호 분산 처리 실험실
ISCSI Extensions for RDMA (iSER) draft-ko-iwarp-iser-02 Mike Ko IBM August 2, 2004.
Copyright © Lopamudra Roychoudhuri
Chapter 24 Transport Control Protocol (TCP) Layer 4 protocol Responsible for reliable end-to-end transmission Provides illusion of reliable network to.
Draft-ietf-rddp-security-02 Summary of outstanding issues August 4, 2004 Jim Pinkerton.
Attacking on IPv6 W.lilakiatsakun Ref: ipv6-attack-defense-33904http://
U NIVERSITY of N EW H AMPSHIRE I NTER O PERABILITY L AB iSCSI Plugfest (Oct 28 - Nov 3) UNH InterOperability Laboratory Yamini Shastry Graduate Research.
Mr. P. K. GuptaSandeep Gupta Roopak Agarwal
ISER on InfiniBand (and SCTP). Problem Statement Currently defined IB Storage I/O protocol –SRP (SCSI RDMA Protocol) –SRP does not have a discovery or.
ISER Draft Status draft-ietf-ips-iser-01 Mike Ko March 8, 2005.
August 04, 2004John Carrier, Adaptec1 One-Shot STags John Carrier Adaptec.
TCP continued. Discussion – TCP Throughput TCP will most likely generate the saw tooth type of traffic. – A rough estimate is that the congestion window.
ISER Support Annex Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. IBTA SWG San Francisco September 25, 2006.
RFC 4068bis draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-01.txt Rajeev Koodli.
1 Protocols and Protocol Layering. 2 Protocol Agreement about communication Specifies –Format of messages –Meaning of messages –Rules for exchange –Procedures.
DATA LINK CONTROL. DATA LINK LAYER RESPONSIBILTIES  FRAMING  ERROR CONTROL  FLOW CONTROL.
Data Link Layer.
PROTOCOL BASICS. 2 Introduction In chapter 3: Circuits and techniques can be employed to transmit a frame of information between 2 DTEs Error detection.
Data Link Control Protocols  need layer of logic above Physical  to manage exchange of data over a link frame synchronization frame synchronization flow.
Chapter 3 Part 3 Switching and Bridging
Chapter 11 User Datagram Protocol
Chapter 9: Transport Layer
ICMP The IP provides unreliable and connectionless datagram delivery. The IP protocol has no error-reporting or error-correcting mechanism. The IP protocol.
Chapter 11 Data Link Control and Protocols
Data Link Layer - 3 Dr. Sanjay P. Ahuja, Ph.D.
March 21, 2001 Recall we have talked about the Sliding Window Protocol for Flow Control Review this protocol A window of size I can contain at most I.
Instructor Materials Chapter 9: Transport Layer
Mobile Networking (I) CS 395T - Mobile Computing and Wireless Networks
Chapter 23 Introduction To Transport Layer
21-2 ICMP(Internet control message protocol)
Chapter 9 ICMP.
Chapter 17 and 18: TCP is connection oriented
Chapter 11 Data Link Control
PPP PROTOCOL The First semester
PART 5 Transport Layer Computer Networks.
Instructor Mazhar Hussain
Chapter 6: Transport Layer (Part I)
The 66th IETF meeting in Montreal, Canada
Byungchul Park ICMP & ICMPv DPNM Lab. Byungchul Park
Process-to-Process Delivery:
CIS 321 Data Communications & Networking
Chapter 10 Data Link Control
Inter Process Communication (IPC)
PUSH Flag A notification from the sender to the receiver to pass all the data the receiver has to the receiving application. Some implementations of TCP.
Computer Science Division
Net 323 D: Networks Protocols
Internet Control Message Protocol
Chapter 3 Part 3 Switching and Bridging
Typically for using the shared memory the processes should:
CS4470 Computer Networking Protocols
Project 3 Flow and congestion control
NET 323D: Networks Protocols
Error Checking continued
Presentation transcript:

draft-ietf-ips-iser-00 Mike Ko November 8, 2004 iSER Draft Status draft-ietf-ips-iser-00 Mike Ko November 8, 2004

iSER Flow Control for Control-Type PDU As currently defined, the iSER protocol does not provide additional flow control beyond that provided by the iSCSI layer on control-type PDUs From section 8.1: “The iSER Layer SHOULD provision enough Untagged buffers for handling incoming RDMAP Send Message Types to prevent a buffer underrun condition” iWARP Verbs mechanisms such as the Shared Receive Queue mechanism can be used to effectively address the Send Message flow control question Most iSCSI PDUs are paced by the CmdSN window mechanism in iSCSI Question: Should some form of send side flow control be established for iSCSI control-type PDUs not regulated by the CmdSN window? 11/8/2004 M. Ko

Flow Control Alternatives for Unexpected PDUs Require the receiver to replenish buffers faster than the arrival rate of incoming PDUs including the unexpected ones Imposes a constraint on the implementation that may not be achievable in all circumstances Require the RNIC to do graceful handling on lack of receiver buffer situations Mandates the implementation of an optional feature Declare a limit on the number of unexpected PDUs that can be sent If architected correctly, can also accommodate options 1, 2, and 5 11/8/2004 M. Ko

Flow Control Alternatives for Unexpected PDUs Define an explicit credit based flow control mechanism Basically a receive side flow control Extra overhead even when options 1, 2, and 5 are used Require the RNIC to use Shared RQ Mandates the implementation of an optional feature Drop the link if there is buffer overrun Default solution if no other flow control alternatives Drastic solution compared with other alternatives 11/8/2004 M. Ko

Declared Limit on Sender Side on the Number of Unexpected PDUs First discussed on the IPS reflector in July/August of 2003 between Mike Ko, Caitlin Bestler, David Black, etc. Idea revived and refined in October 2004 A new key, MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU, can be used by both the initiator and the target to declare the maximum number of outstanding “unexpected” control-type PDUs it can receive Key has session wide scope Default is none “None” works for options 1, 2, and 5 If not “none”, is there a good default which is not implementation dependent? 11/8/2004 M. Ko

iSCSI Control-Type PDUs from the Initiator Regulated by CmdSN Window If the Initiator sends this PDU It must provision a buffer for this PDU from the Target SCSI Command SCSI Response or Reject before the task is active Task Management Function Request Task Management Function Response Text Request Text Response Login Request Login Response NOP-out (request) ITT /= 0xffffffff TTT = 0xffffffff NOP-in (response) TTT =0xffffffff 11/8/2004 M. Ko

iSCSI Control-Type PDUs from Initiator with Known Buffering Requirement at Target SCSI Data-out PDU For unsolicited data, the iSER layer at the target can use FirstBurstLength to determine the amount of buffering required Solicited data is handled using RDMA Read Response Data cannot be “solicited” since an R2T is always transformed into an RDMA Read Request and is never sent as is by the target Section 7.3.4 to be updated to remove references on sending “solicited” SCSI Data-out PDUs NOP-out PDU with ITT = 0xffffffff and TTT /= 0xffffffff (ping echo) which is sent as a response to a NOP-in PDU from the target 11/8/2004 M. Ko

iSCSI Control-Type PDUs from the Initiator Subject to Declared Limit Any PDU with the immediate flag set For the PDUs listed on slide 6, the PDU is outstanding until the target responds with the corresponding response PDU For NOP-out PDU with ITT = TTT = 0xffffffff, the PDU is outstanding until the target responds with a control-type PDU with ExpCmdSN set to at least x + 1 where x is the CmdSN of the PDU with the immediate flag set NOP-out PDU with ITT = 0xffffffff and TTT /= 0xffffffff (ping echo) is not subject to the declared limit since it is sent as a response to a NOP-in PDU from the target SNACK PDU Not needed in iSER If sent, PDU is outstanding until the target responds with a SCSI Response PDU for the referenced command 11/8/2004 M. Ko

Potential Problem with Overuse of Unidirectional NOP-out When the target sends a PDU with ExpCmdSN set to x+1, up to MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU unidirectional NOP-out PDUs with ITT = TTT = 0xffffffff with CmdSN = x could be in flight from the initiator Upon receiving the PDU from the target, the initiator can send MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU unidirectional NOP-out PDUs with CmdSN = x+1 To guard against this pathetic case, the target needs to provision the number of buffers equal to twice MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU in this situation for the unexpected PDUs The number of buffers for unexpected PDUs can be reduced to MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU when the initiator sends a non-immediate PDU with CmdSN = x+1 Recommend that we add a cautionary note instead against the overuse of the unidirectional NOP-out 11/8/2004 M. Ko

iSCSI Control-Type PDUs from the Target Subject to Declared Limit The following PDUs are outstanding until the initiator sends a control-type PDU with ExpStatSN set to at least x + 1 where x is the StatSN of the “unexpected” PDU Asynchronous Message PDU Reject PDU sent after the task is active NOP-in PDU initiated by the target with ITT = TTT = 0xffffffff A NOP-in PDU sent as a ping request by the target with ITT = 0xffffffff and TTT /= 0xffffffff is outstanding until the initiator responds with a NOP-out PDU (ping echo) 11/8/2004 M. Ko

Potential Problem with Overuse of Unidirectional NOP-in For a NOP-in PDU from the target with ITT = TTT = 0xffffffff, StatSN is not advanced When the initiator sends a PDU with ExpStatSN set to x+1 where x is the StatSN of this NOP-in PDU, up to MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU unidirectional NOP-in PDUs with ITT = TTT = 0xffffffff with StatSN = x could be in flight from the target Upon receiving the PDU from the initiator, the target can send MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU unidirectional NOP-in PDUs with CmdSN = x+1 To guard against this pathetic case, the initiator needs to provision the number of buffers equal to twice MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU in this situation for the unexpected PDUs The number of buffers for unexpected PDUs can be reduced to MaxOutstandingUnexpectedPDU when the target sends a PDU with StatSN = x+1 Recommend that we add a cautionary note instead against the overuse of the unidirectional NOP-in 11/8/2004 M. Ko