FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-04.txt

KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1) marjorie.krueger at hp.com
Wed Oct 30 11:09:51 PST 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie.krueger at hp.com>
*
Ooops, meant to cc this to the SCSI MIB reflector!  Sorry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1) 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:08 AM
> To: 'Mark Bakke'
> Cc: SCSI reflector (t10 at t10.org)
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-04.txt
> 
> 
> I think we should do the same sort of thing in the SCSI MIB 
> that we did in the iSCSI MIB regarding counter items that may 
> wrap (2 objects, c32 and c64, the c32 is the lower 32 bits of 
> the c64, c64 is optional).  
> 
> But why go back to bytes instead of Mbytes?  Maybe Kbytes - 
> that's the granularity of most file systems detailed file 
> size.  Bytes seems too small of a measure.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Bakke [mailto:mbakke at cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:00 AM
> > To: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)
> > Cc: 'Amir Shalit'; ips at ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-04.txt
> > 
> > 
> > "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 1) Read/Write counters
> > > >
> > > > Counter32 (counting MB transferred) wrap at about 1000 hours on
> > > > 10Gbps links. Can we the MIB use a Counter64 instead?
> > > 
> > > We want to accommodate SNMPv1 agents (which can't implement
> > > Counter64), so we can add an optional counter64.  Thanks for the 
> > > reminder!
> > 
> > Since we are back to an optional counter64, should it be in
> > bytes instead of MB?
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 2) Virtualization
> > > >
> > > > An attempt was made to list all LU's which are part of a
> > LUN. In my
> > > > opinion, the ultimate mechanism to represent hierarchical
> > volumes is
> > > > via a volume manager MIB. For the time being it will be 
> useful to
> > > > associate a {start LBA, end LBA} vector with each LU to 
> allow for 
> > > > most simplistic virtualization mapping.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what you mean.  The MIB lists all the LU's that are
> > > contained within a Target device, and then a table of all the LUN 
> > > mappings for those LU's.  I don't really think of "LU's 
> > being part of
> > > a LUN" - the MIB doesn't try to accommodate virtualization,
> > we agree
> > > that virtualization is better represented via another MIB.
> > This MIB
> > > is an attempt to represent the simple
> > > (average?) SCSI device.  Section 3.4 states that this MIB
> > is not meant to
> > > address virtual devices, merely the "visible SCSI
> > attributes" (what a host
> > > will see).
> > 
> > I agree with Marj.  Note that even target mapping (e.g. map a
> > FC target to an iSCSI target) or LUN mapping are outside the 
> > scope of a SCSI MIB.
> > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Marjorie Krueger
> > > Networked Storage Architecture
> > > Networked Storage Solutions
> > > Hewlett-Packard
> > 
> > --
> > Mark A. Bakke
> > Cisco Systems
> > mbakke at cisco.com
> > 763.398.1054
> > 
> 
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org




More information about the T10 mailing list