[T10] Please review 20-002r1 and report to Bill Martin

Ballard, Curtis C (HPE Storage) curtis.ballard at hpe.com
Fri Mar 13 08:59:34 PDT 2020


John,



Part of the reason Ralph brought in 20-002r1 is because I pointed out that he had introduced duplication of requirements in text that he added to ZBC-2 with proposal 19-089r3.  After further close examination I think Ralph's proposal is OK but I think we've got another minor clarification that is needed but that clarification isn't essential for sanitize.



The proposed deleted text from SBC-4:



a) the initial condition for each LBA in write pointer zones (see ZBC-2) is determined by the ZNR bit (see 5.29);

[ccb] This was moved into the intro text to the pharagrah



b) the Zone Condition (see ZBC-2) shall be set to OFFLINE for every write pointer zone that was not able to be

sanitized (e.g., as a result of an inability to write to that zone);

[ccb] 19-089r3 duplicated this text and in ZBC2r04a the above requirement is now in the sanitize operations section of 4.9


c) successful completion of that sanitize operation shall include:
    A) completing the requirements described in SBC-4; and
    B) setting each write pointer zone's state (i.e., Zone Condition) to the initial state described in 4.5.3.6.1,
         unless:
             a) that write pointer zone was not able to be sanitized (e.g., due to an inability to write to that zone),

                 in which case the zone's Zone Condition shall become OFFLINE; and



c) the Zone Condition shall be set to NOT WRITE POINTER for every conventional zone; and

[ccb] I believe this requirement got lost but interestingly I think that just points out a miss in ZBC.  There should be a statement that the initial condition for a conventional zone is NOT WRITE POINTER and then the requirement in ZBC that a sanitize operation set zones to their initial condition would get this requirement.  As near as I can tell today the spec today only requires a conventional zone to be NOT WRITE POINTER following a sanitize due to this requirement and never otherwise requires that.



d) unless otherwise specified, the Zone Condition for each write pointer zone shall be set to the Zone

Condition associated with the initial state for that write pointer zone after power on (see ZBC-2).

[ccb] This requirement is captured in the same text I quoted above responding to item (b) in this being proposed to be removed.



Curtis Ballard

Hewlett Packard Enterprise



-----Original Message-----
From: t10-bounces at t10.org <t10-bounces at t10.org> On Behalf Of Bill Martin
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:29 PM
To: John.Geldman at kioxia.com; Ralph.Weber at wdc.com; t10 at t10.org
Subject: Re: [T10] Please review 20-002r1 and report to Bill Martin



The ZBC text that Ralph referenced in order to delete that is st the end of his proposal. But I just realized that he took it out of t1 (it was only in r0),  and I don't have that on my system as I am flying. I wil have to look and see if it is indeed there.



Check out the text st the end of r0, to see where this is in ZBC.





Bill Martin



Chair INCITS T10

Co-Chair SNIA Technical Council

SSD I/O Standards

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.



Cell (408) 499-1839

________________________________

From: John Geldman <John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com>>

Sent: Mar 12, 2020 4:42 PM

To: Bill Martin <bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com>>; Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com>; T10 Reflector <t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>>

Subject: RE: Please review 20-002r1 and report to Bill Martin





Bill,







Before I made my comment, I looked for it in ZBC-2r3 and did not see it. Here is the entire text of 4.7:







4.7 Sanitize operations



See SBC-4 for the definition of the SANITIZE command. A SANITIZE operation affects all zones, however some characteristics are dependent on the zone types (see 4.4) present in the zoned block device. The ZNR bit in the SANITIZE command controls whether a reset write pointer zone operation is performed on each write pointer zone as part of the sanitize operation.







So, I didn't accept it and still don't. Model clause requirements to model clause requirements are not consistent. There was no linked or simultaenous ZBC-2 proposal either.







John







-----Original Message-----

From: Bill Martin <bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com>>

Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 12:56 PM

To: John Geldman <John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com>>; Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com>; T10 Reflector <t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>>

Subject: RE: Please review 20-002r1 and report to Bill Martin







John;







The context that you are missing is that the a, b, c list that is deleted is fully covered in the ZBC-2 specification. The end of this proposal contains the text from the ZBC specification.







If you take that light on the deleted text, do you believe that the list you pointed out is or is not covered in the ZBC specification?











Bill Martin







Chair INCITS T10



Co-Chair SNIA Technical Council



SSD I/O Standards



Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.







Cell (408) 499-1839



________________________________



From: John Geldman <John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com%3cmailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com>>>



Sent: Mar 12, 2020 1:54 PM



To: Bill Martin <bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at samsung.com>>>; Ralph Weber <Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com>>>; t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org%3cmailto:t10 at t10.org>>



Subject: RE: Please review 20-002r1 and report to Bill Martin







I've snuck in some review, and I'll confess with half attention during my meetings this morning.







I am ok with the changes in 4.11.1 (I prefer this new language) and 5.29.1 (I am missing the essential benefit of the new text, but I don't object to it).







However, I am troubled with the removal of the [abcd] list in 4.11.4. Information such as the use of a Zone Condition of OFFLINE to replace the deallocate functionality of conventional doesn't exist anywhere else. I believe there was a baby in that bath water.







So as a whole (as we normally process proposals), I do not approve of 20-002r1.







John







From: Bill Martin <bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at samsung.com>>>



Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 8:54 AM



To: John Geldman <John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com%3cmailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com>>>; Ralph Weber <Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com>>>



Subject: RE: Please review 20-002r1 and report to Bill Martin







John:







Can you let me know before I get on my plane at 1:00 PDT? That way I can incorporate during my flight time today. If not, I will incorporate this last and wait for your response.







Thank you,







Bill Martin



Chair INCITS T10



Co-Chair SNIA Technical Council



SSD I/O Standards



NVMe Board of Directors



Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.



Cell (408) 499-1839







From: John Geldman [mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com]



Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 7:15 AM



To: Ralph Weber <Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com>>>>



Cc: Bill Martin <bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at samsung.com>>>>



Subject: RE: Please review 20-002r1 and report to Bill Martin







Good Morning,







I did a crazy thing and took the evening off from email. This morning I have NVMe and PCI-SIG meetings from 7 AM to 11 AM (Pacific).



Meeting this time request for 9 AM (Pacific) is going to be difficult. I'll have half an eye on it and we'll see when it gets done.







John







From: Ralph Weber <Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com<mailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com%3cmailto:Ralph.Weber at wdc.com>>>>



Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 7:14 PM



To: John Geldman <John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com%3cmailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com<mailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com%3cmailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com%3cmailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com%3cmailto:John.Geldman at kioxia.com>>>>



Cc: William Martin <bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com<mailto:bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com%3cmailto:bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com>>>>



Subject: Please review 20-002r1 and report to Bill Martin







John,







The CAP Working Group has asked me to request your review of:



20-002r1







SBC-4: Rebalance ZNR requirements with ZBC-2 (and SATA)







Ralph Weber







PDF<https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=0c6cd8c5-51becfcc-0c6d538a-0cc47a31cdf8-6ff49526e3e6dbf6&u=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.t10.org_cgi-2Dbin_ac.pl-3Ft-3Dd-26f-3D20-2D002r1.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=JfeWlBa6VbDyTXraMENjy_b_0yKWuqQ4qY-FPhxK4x8w-TfgRBDyeV4hVQQBEgL2&r=jSpEy7Yj0bqYmo1kofUJM_7RYFD7CsHx2Wx_c5gi3Lk&m=D2j6yrNa1bV4bflrxZcJ4AQZiHzE50hqsJ4xYlI63JQ&s=Ix9QThkPiNmBDEfP3XtICtuMDIHMga2neGhm853wdJI&e=<https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=f74aa3ea-aadc1a9d-f74b28a5-0cc47a312ab0-33d95eaed65b9f06&u=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__protect2.fireeye.com_url-3Fk-3D0c6cd8c5-2D51becfcc-2D0c6d538a-2D0cc47a31cdf8-2D6ff49526e3e6dbf6-26u-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-3Fu-3Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.t10.org-5Fcgi-2D2Dbin-5Fac.pl-2D3Ft-2D3Dd-2D26f-2D3D20-2D2D002r1.pdf-26d-3DDwMFAg-26c-3DJfeWlBa6VbDyTXraMENjy-5Fb-5F0yKWuqQ4qY-2DFPhxK4x8w-2DTfgRBDyeV4hVQQBEgL2-26r-3DjSpEy7Yj0bqYmo1kofUJM-5F7RYFD7CsHx2Wx-5Fc5gi3Lk-26m-3DD2j6yrNa1bV4bflrxZcJ4AQZiHzE50hqsJ4xYlI63JQ-26s-3DIx9QThkPiNmBDEfP3XtICtuMDIHMga2neGhm853wdJI-26e-3D&d=DwMFAg&c=JfeWlBa6VbDyTXraMENjy_b_0yKWuqQ4qY-FPhxK4x8w-TfgRBDyeV4hVQQBEgL2&r=jSpEy7Yj0bqYmo1kofUJM_7RYFD7CsHx2Wx_c5gi3Lk&m=U40WI1R7uFvvYHCQtLBdOnMQfGu4oMGHF8tGBOhMFi4&s=HtouolPR0ZBBCymTQH4iEMiUAboFxhsknmbdPKXJVlA&e=<https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=0c6cd8c5-51becfcc-0c6d538a-0cc47a31cdf8-6ff49526e3e6dbf6&u=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.t10.org_cgi-2Dbin_ac.pl-3Ft-3Dd-26f-3D20-2D002r1.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=JfeWlBa6VbDyTXraMENjy_b_0yKWuqQ4qY-FPhxK4x8w-TfgRBDyeV4hVQQBEgL2&r=jSpEy7Yj0bqYmo1kofUJM_7RYFD7CsHx2Wx_c5gi3Lk&m=D2j6yrNa1bV4bflrxZcJ4AQZiHzE50hqsJ4xYlI63JQ&s=Ix9QThkPiNmBDEfP3XtICtuMDIHMga2neGhm853wdJI&e=>>>











To the extent possible, CAP insists that you notify Bill that the incorporation of the changes in 20-002r1 is acceptable to you (e.g., that you would have voted for the proposal had you been in Palm Beach to do so).







Bill has indicted that he has a unique opportunity to build SBC-4 r19 between noon Thursday and noon Friday. So, your prompt attention to the two pages in 20-002r1 will greatly expedite the publication of SBC-4. Hopefully, you can help make this happen.







All the best,







.Ralph



_______________________________________________

T10 mailing list

T10 at t10.org<mailto:T10 at t10.org>

https://www.t10.org/mailman/listinfo/t10
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/attachments/20200313/c6e1be17/attachment.html>


More information about the T10 mailing list