SBC question about block coherency

Hugh Curley HCurley at indra.com
Tue Nov 15 04:57:56 PST 2011


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1111151_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hello Fred and Gerry,
Perhaps how you are defining the operations is allowed in the 
specification - and has been that way for over 20 years - but the actual 
operation of HDD would be far less onerous. Each read or write command 
must do a sequential operation starting at LBA x and continue for y 
blocks. I believe that	disk drives  do each read and each write in an 
atomic operation. I believe there is only one command microprocessor in 
each drive and I cannot envision it executing: Read (cmd 1) at LBA 100, 
Write (cmd 2) at LBA 101, Read (cmd 1) at LBA 101. I also cannot 
envision it executing: Read (cmd 1) at LBA 100, Write (cmd 2) at LBA 
10,000, Read (cmd 1) at LBA 101.
Two exceptions that may not be done as atomic operations: 1) part of the 
data is in cache and part on the media, 2) if a head or cylinder seek is 
required.
Am I missing something?
Thank you,
Hugh
On 11/14/2011 11:37 PM, Knight, Frederick wrote:
>
> I would also add, that your statement about "the LBA" is also 
> correct.If in your example, these READ and WRITE commands are 
> operating on an overlapping multi-LBA range, I'm not aware of any 
> language that requires serial command completion.
>
> Obvious, as Gerry stated, restricted reordering (see SAM) does add 
> requirements on WRITES, but multiple normal SIMPLE tagged commands in 
> the unrestricted environment may all overlap.If you extend your 
> READ/WRITE question so that each request involves multiple LBAs, you 
> can see that "the LBA" is now significant, in that the READ (of 
> multiple LBAs) is no longer guaranteed to read all old data or all new 
> data -- each LBA would independently be old or new, such that your 
> data-in buffer may contain some random mix of blocks containing old 
> data, and blocks containing new data.
>
> I would call it Option 3:
>
> There is an inherent race condition so that as the WRITE and the READ 
> commands are processed, they do atomic operations individually on each 
> LBA referenced by that command, at the same time that the other 
> command also does atomic operations individually on each LBA 
> referenced by that command.No matter which command begins processing 
> first, the data that is read may contain some whole blocks that 
> contain old data and some whole blocks that contain new data.
>
> Fred
>
> *From:*Gerry Houlder [mailto:gerry.houlder at seagate.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2011 4:51 PM
> *To:* T10 Reflector
> *Subject:* Re: SBC question about block coherency
>
> Option 1 is the expected behavior. From the point of view of the SCSI 
> target device, commands are not received simultaneously; there will 
> always be a mechanism that will cause one of the commands to be logged 
> as being received ahead of the other.
>
> However there can be other influences on that ordering.
>
> (a) Due to system configuration details (e.g., expanders), command 
> might be sent from a host in one order but received by the target in a 
> different order.
>
> (b) If all commands are SIMPLE task attribute, they may be reordered 
> once they are received into the target's queue. I would not expect 
> commands that access the same LBA to be reordered with respect to each 
> other, but this is allowed if "unrestricted reordering" is set in the 
> Control mode page. If "restricted reordering" is set in the mode page 
> instead, then reordering of writes with respect to reads of the same 
> LBA is not allowed.
>
> (c) A command with HEAD OF QUEUE attribute is usually placed ahead of 
> other commands that are in the queue. There are exceptions for 
> commands that have already started processing so there is some gray 
> area here.
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Kevin D Butt <kdbutt at us.ibm.com 
> > wrote:
>
> I have a question that seems obvious, but since I come from the tape 
> world and have not spent much time in the disk world I could be 
> assuming behaviors that I shouldn't.
> In the tape world, if a logical block is overwritten, then the read of 
> that logical block cannot occur until after the write has been 
> completed. The tape's command queue is essentially an ordered queue. 
> In the disk world, as I understand it, many commands can be processed 
> in parallel, that is, the queue is not necessarily an ordered queue. 
> So, I have a question about what that parallel'ness means when the 
> command arrives with a task type of HEAD OF QUEUE.
>
> In the example of a WRITE being issued at the same time as a READ 
> being issued for the same LBA from multiple application clients (i.e., 
> in different task sets), what should be expected?
>
> Option 1:
> There is an inherent race condition so either the WRITE or the READ 
> command will arrive first and be processed as an atomic operation on 
> the LBA, then the other command will be processed on the LBA. If the 
> READ arrives first the data that is read is the old data. If the write 
> arrives first the new data is written and then the read reads the new 
> data.
>
> Option 2:
> There is an inherent race condition so either the WRITE or the READ 
> command arrives first, but both commands are processed simultaneously 
> and the READ command returns data that contains partially old data and 
> partially new data.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin D. Butt
> SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
> Data Protection & Retention
> MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
> Tel: 520-799-5280
> Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
> Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com 
> http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/
>



More information about the T10 mailing list