XOR Command meeting minutes 3/6/95
Jay_Elrod at notes.seagate.com
Thu Mar 9 06:59:23 PST 1995
XOR Command Study Group meeting minutes - Document number X3T10/95-161r0
Meeting place: Hyatt Newporter, Newport Beach
Date: March 6, 1995
Gerry Houlder Seagate
Jay Elrod Seagate
Stephen Fuld StorageTek
Mike Chenery Fujitsu
George Penokie IBM
Lansing Sloan Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab.
Paul Boulay Hitachi
Bill Hutchison Hewlett Packard
Mark Hamel EMC
Edward Fong Amdahl
Doug Prins QLogic
Rod DeKoning Symbios Logic
Jim Whitworth Conner Peripherals
Bob Snively Sun Microsystems
Edward Gardner Quantum
Eric Griffith Western Digital
Robert Liu Fujitsu
Paul Hodges IBM
Charles Monia Digital Equipment Corp.
Jeff Stai Western Digital Corp.
Gerry Houlder acted as chairman for the meeting, conducting a page
by page walkthrough of the XOR document (X3T10/94-111r6). Below
is a summary of the major issues discussed. Note: several minor
editorial changes were discussed which are not included in this list.
The next revision should be referred to if details of these changes are
1) It was recommended that the Model section of the document take
more of a "just the facts" approach, rather than including phrases such
as "An advantage of this technique is...". It was emphasized that the
intent of a standard is to explain an idea, not to sell it.
2) It was recommended that the word "Host" be replaced with "Controller"
in the title of section 1.1, "Host Supervised XOR Operations".
3) Terminology compatibility between the XOR document and the SCC
document was discussed. For example, the XOR document uses terms
such as "Data" and "Parity", whereas the SCC document uses "Protected
space" and "Check data", respectively, to mean the same thing. It was
suggested that perhaps the terminology in the XOR document should
more closely resemble that of the SCC document to avoid confusion.
4) It was pointed out that the term "domain" could most likely be used
in the context of SCSI devices capable of peer-to-peer communication.
For example, the phrase "devices on the same bus or loop" could most
likely be replaced with "devices in the same domain".
5) It was suggested that a step be added in section 1.2.1 which describes
the fact that an XOR operation takes place in the check data device.
6) It was recommended that paragraph c of section 1.4.2 be modified to
be more correct with regard to the term "inconsistent", since the first
sentence of the paragraph could be interpretted as a partial redefinition
of the term (with respect to the preceding paragraphs). One suggestion
was to modify the last sentence of this section to read something like
"Consistency should be maintained during regenerates and rebuilds.".
7) It was recommended that example diagrams describing different
possible RAID system configurations, similar to those which existed in the
last revision (but were removed), be put back into the document. It
was mentioned that the model section should contain any generic
drawings, and that drawings which describe specific examples should
be contained in the appendix.
8) It was recommended that the XDWRITE(16) command should specify
that the LUN of the secondary target shall be zero. (Text to this effect was
removed from an earlier revision.)
9) It was recommended that a description of the Transfer Length field be
added to the XDWRITE(16) command. (This was removed from an earlier
10) There was discussion about removing the requirement for the implied
exclusive access extent reservation during the XDWRITE(16) command.
11) It was mentioned that the final version of the XOR document will need to
be in Frame format (the current format is Microsoft Word).
12) It was decided that the document should contain information specifying
what events will relieve a target of having to retain xor'd data awaiting
an XDREAD command. It was decided that, in addition to the appropriate
XDREAD command, a Bus Device Reset, Reset, power cycle, Clear
Queue, Abort, and Abort Tag would accomplish this.
13) Since there is nothing is the XOR document which disallows simultaneous
writes to medium on both a data and parity device in Third Party mode (an
XDWRITE command may be writing to the data disk at the same time as the
associated XPWRITE command is writing to the parity disk), there is the
possibility that two devices in the same stripe could become corrupted in
the case of, for example, a power outage during disk writes. This would cause
the stripe to be non-rebuildable. The idea of a special bit somewhere to
prevent such simultaneous writes was mentioned. It was also mentioned that
perhaps this issue should not be addressed at the spec level, but rather
between vendors and customers if there is a concern.
14) It was mentioned that the recently added "buffer full" status may have the
same meaning, in certain cases, as "queue full".
15) Order of appearance of commands in the XOR document was discussed.
It was pointed out that the order should be alphabetical, and should be
patterned after other ANSI documents when two or more commands exist
with the same name but different cdb lengths. For example, XDWRITE(10)
should appear before XDWRITE(16), etc.
16) Paul Hodges (IBM) presented an idea in which the XOR task during a
rebuild or regenerate operation would be distributed among all of the
involved source devices rather than handled completely by the
REBUILD/REGENERATE target, in order to offload some of the work
|from that target. No specific technique was presented since Paul was
only looking for feedback as to whether the idea should be further
investigated. Since the response was positive, the idea will be pursued
by Paul and handled on the SCSI reflector.
17) It was mentioned that there should be an error reporting scheme for the
REBUILD and REGENERATE commands since, without such a scheme,
the controller has no information regarding which source device may have
failed during such an operation. A sense index byte was recommended for
this purpose. The byte would point to the source descriptor field (of the
REBUILD/REGENERATE parameter data) which contained the address
of the failing device. It was also suggested that certain error codes from the
SCC document could be used, such as "Rebuild Failure".
18) REBUILD and REGENERATE parameter data:
- It was requested that provision be made for a "pad" between the last
source descriptor and the intermediate data in the REGENERATE and
REBUILD parameter data. The reason for such a pad would be to facilitate
those controllers which are unable to send contigious parameter data
(i.e. the first byte of intermediate data immediately follows the last byte of
the last source descriptor). A "Source Descriptor Length" value was
requested for bytes 2 and 3 of the parameter data, which would specify in
bytes the sum of the source descriptor lengths and the pad length.
- There was a request for an 8 byte LUN field and 4 reserved bytes in the
Source Physical Address field within the source descriptor.
- It was pointed out that the byte numbering scheme for the parameter data
needs to be such that all byte numbers are relative to the first byte of
parameter data, rather than to the first byte of a particular section within the
parameter data. For example, the first byte of the first source descriptor
should have 4, not 0, as its byte number.
19) It was recommended that the Log Mode bit be removed from the XOR
Control mode page until the meaning of "Logging Device" is specified.
It was also recommended that 2 reserved bytes be added to this page,
increasing the total page length to 24 bytes, for byte alignment purposes.
More information about the T10