• Home
  • About
  •  

    Clustered File Systems: No Limits

    October 7th, 2016

    Today’s storage world would appear to have been divided into three major and mutually exclusive categories: block, file and object storage. The marketing that shapes much of the user demand would appear to suggest that these are three quite distinct animals, and many systems are sold as exclusively either SAN for block, NAS for file or object. And object is often conflated with cloud, a consumption model that can in reality be block, file or object.

    A fixed taxonomy that divides the storage world this way is very limiting, and can be confusing; for instance, when we talk about cloud. How should providers and users buy and consume their storage? Are there other classifications that might help in providing storage solutions to meet specific or more general application needs? What about customers who need file access performance beyond what one storage box can provide? Which options support those who want scale-out solution like object storage with file protocol semantics?

    To clear up the confusion, the SNIA Ethernet Storage Forum is hosting a live Webcast, “Clustered File Systems: No Limits.” In this Webcast we will explore clustered storage solutions that not only provide multiple end users access to shared storage over a network, but allow the storage itself to be distributed and managed over multiple discrete storage systems. You’ll hear:

    • General principles and specific clustered and distributed systems and the facilities they provide built on the underlying storage
    • Better known file systems like NFS, IBM Spectrum Scale (GPFS) and Lustre, along with a few of the less well known
    • How object based systems like S3 have blurred the lines between them and traditional file based solutions

    This Webcast should appeal to those interested in exploring some of the different ways of accessing & managing storage, and how that might affect how storage systems are provisioned and consumed. POSIX and other acronyms may be mentioned, but no rocket science beyond a general understanding of the principles of storage will be assumed. Contains no nuts and is suitable for vegans!

    As always, our experts will be on hand to answer your questions on the spot. Register now for this October 25th event.

     


    Everything You Wanted to Know about Storage, but were too Proud to Ask

    July 18th, 2016

    Many times we know things without even realizing it, or remembering how we came to know them. In technology, this often comes from direct, personal experience rather than some systematic process. In turn, this leads to “best practices” that come from tribal knowledge, rather than any inherent codified set of rules to follow.

    In the world of storage, for example, it’s very tempting to simply think of component parts that can be swapped out interchangeably. Change out your spinning hard drives for solid state, for example, you can generally expect better performance. Change the way you connect to the storage device, get better performance… or do you?

    Storage is more holistic than many people realize, and as a result there are often unintended consequences for even the simplest of modifications. With the ‘hockey stick-like’ growth in innovation over the past couple of years, many people have found themselves facing terms and concepts in storage that they feel they should have understood, but don’t.

    These series of webcasts are designed to help you with those troublesome spots: everything you thought you should know about storage but were afraid to ask.

    Here, we’re going to go all the way back to basics and define the terms so that people can understand what people are talking about in those discussions. Not only are we going to define the terms, but we’re going to talk about terms that are impacted by those concepts once you start mixing and matching.

    For example, when we say that we have a “memory mapped” storage architecture, what does that mean? Can we have a memory mapped storage system at the other end of a network? If so, what protocol should we use – iSCSI? POSIX? NVMe over Fabrics? Would this be an idempotent system or an object-based storage system?

    Now, if that above paragraph doesn’t send you into fits of laughter, then this series of webcasts is for you (hint: most of it was complete nonsense… but which part? Come watch to find out!).

    On September 7th, we will start with the very basics – The Naming of the Parts. We’ll break down the entire storage picture and identify the places where most of the confusion falls. Join us in this first webcast – Part Chartreuse – where we’ll learn:

    • What an initiator is
    • What a target is
    • What a storage controller is
    • What a RAID is, and what a RAID controller is
    • What a Volume Manager is
    • What a Storage Stack is

    Too proud to ask

     

    With these fundamental parts, we’ll be able to place them into a context so that you can understand how all these pieces fit together to form a Data Center storage environment. Future webcasts will discuss:

    Part Mauve – Architecture Pod:

    • Channel v. bus
    • Control plane v. data plane
    • Fabric v. network

    Part Teal – Buffering Pod:

    • Buffering v. Queueing (with Queue Depth)
    • Flow Control
    • Ring Buffers

    Part Rosé – iSCSI Pod:

    • iSCSI offload
    • TCP offload
    • Host-based iSCSI

    Part Sepia – Getting-From-Here-To-There Pod:

    • Encapsulation v. Tuning
    • IOPS v. Latency v. Jitter

    Part Vermillion – The What-if-Programming-and-Networking-Had-A-Baby Pod:

    • Storage APIs v. POSIX
    • Block v. File v. Object
    • Idempotent
    • Coherence v. Cache Coherence
    • Byte Addressable v. Logical Block Addressing

    Part Taupe – Memory Pod:

    • Memory Mapping
    • Physical Region Page (PRP)
    • Scatter Gather Lists
    • Offset

    Part Turquoise – Where-Does-My-Data-Go Pod:

    • Volatile v. Non-Volatile v Persistent Memory
    • NVDIMM v. RAM v. DRAM v. SLC v. MLC v. TLC v. NAND v. 3D NAND v. Flash v SSDs v. NVMe
    • NVMe (the protocol)

    Part Burgundy – Orphans Pod

    • Doorbells
    • Controller Memory Buffers

    Of course, you may already be familiar with some, or all, of these concepts. If you are, then these webcasts aren’t for you. However, if you’re a seasoned professional in technology in another area (compute, networking, programming, etc.) and you want to brush up on some of the basics without judgment or expectations, this is the place for you.

    Oh, and why are the parts named after colors, instead of numbered? Because there is no order to these webcasts. Each is a standalone seminar on understanding some of the elements of storage systems that can help you learn about technology without admitting that you were faking it the whole time! If you are looking for a starting point – the absolute beginning place – please start with Part Chartreuse, “The Naming of the Parts.” We look forward to seeing you on September 7th at 10:00 a.m. PT. Register today.


    It’s Time for a Re-Introduction to Ethernet Networked Storage

    July 7th, 2016

    Ethernet technology had been a proven standard for over 30 years and there are many networked storage solutions based on Ethernet. While storage devices are evolving rapidly with new standards and specifications, Ethernet is moving towards higher speeds as well: 10Gbps, 25Gbps, 50Gbps and 100Gbps….making it time to re-introduce Ethernet Networked Storage.

    That’s exactly what Rob Davis and I plan to do on August 4th in a live SNIA Ethernet Storage Forum Webcast, “Re-Introducing Ethernet Networked Storage.” We will start by providing a solid foundation on Ethernet networked storage and move to the latest advancements, challenges, use cases and benefits. You’ll hear:

    • The evolution of storage devices – spinning media to NVM
    • New standards: NVMe and NVMe over Fabric
    • A retrospect of traditional networked storage including SAN and NAS
    • How new storage devices and new standards would impact Ethernet networked storage
    • Ethernet based software-defined storage and the hyper-converged model
    • A look ahead at new Ethernet technologies optimized for networked storage in the future

    I hope you will join us on August 4th at 10:00 a.m. PT. We’re confident you will learn some new things about Ethernet networked storage. Register today!


    Principles of Networked Solid State Storage – Q&A

    June 22nd, 2016

    At this month’s SNIA Ethernet Storage Forum Webcast, “Architectural Principles for Networked Solid State Storage Access,” Doug Voigt, Chair of the SNIA NVM Programming Technical Working Group, and a member of the SNIA Technical Council, outlined key architectural principles surrounding the application of networked solid state technologies. We had a flurry of questions near the end of the Webcast that we did not have enough time to answer. Here are Doug’s answers to all the questions we received during the event:

    Q. Are there wait cycles in accessing persistent memory?

    A. It depends entirely on which persistent memory (PM) technology is being accessed and how the memory interconnect is used.  Some technologies have write times that are quite different from read times.  When using tightly timed interconnects such as DDR with those technologies it may be difficult to avoid wait cycles.

    Q. How do Pmalloc and malloc share the virtual address space of the application?

    A. This is entirely up to the OS and other libraries operating within any constraints of the processor architecture-specific memory management units.  A good mental model would be fairly large regions of contiguous address space in both the physical and virtual domains, where each region will comprise a single type of memory. Capacity will be reserved for pmalloc and malloc in the appropriate regions.

    Q. Always flush after doing your memory-mapped IO.  Is that simply good hygiene?

    A. Not exactly. The term “Memory Mapped IO” is used to reference control plane (as opposed to data plane) access.  It is often reasonable to set up control plane memory as uncacheable. The need for strict order of access to physical control plane registers is so pervasive that caching is generally not useful. Uncacheable writes are always flushed by the processor, as opposed to the application.

    Generally with memory mapped IO devices the data plane uses direct memory access (DMA).  With memory mapped files (as opposed to memory mapped IO) Load/Store (more commonly referred to as “Ld/St”), not DMA, is used in the data plane. Disabling caching in the data plane is generally a big performance sacrifice for small byte range access.

    In the Ld/St datapath, strategically placed flushing is required to retain both performance and power failure recovery. The SNIA NVM Programming Model describes this type of functionality.

    Q. Once NVDIMM support become pervasive with support from NVMe drives in the server box, should network storage be more focused on SAS Flash or just SAS HDDs?

    A. Not necessarily.  NVMe over Fabric, Fibre Channel and iSCSI are also types of networked storage that will likely retain significant market share relative to SAS.

    Q. Are the ‘Big Data’ Data Warehouse applications starting to use the persistence memory and domain technologies in their applications?

    A. It is too early to see much of this yet. PM technologies might become a priority as a staging area for analytic applications with high ingest or checkpoint rates. NVDIMMs are likely to be too expensive to store anything “big” for quite a while.

    Q. Also, is the persistence memory/domains being used in the Hyper-converged and Converged hardware infrastructures?

    A. Persistent memory is quintessentially (Hyper-) converged.  It wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect some traction with hyper-converged solutions that experience high storage-performance demand.

    Q. What distance would you associate with 10’s of microseconds?

    A. In terms of transmission delay, 10’s of uS align with a campus or small city scale, but the distance itself is often not the primary factor.  Switching delays, transmission line properties and software overhead are generally bigger factors.

    Q. So latency would be the binding factor for distances…not a question, an observation.

    A. Yes, in effect, either through transmission or relay.  See above.

    Q. Aren’t there multi-threaded SSDs?

    A. Yes, but since the primary metric in this presentation is latency we ignore multi-threading.  It can enable more work to get done, but it generally increases latency rather than reducing it.

    Q. Is Pmalloc universal usage?

    A. The term is starting to be recognized among developers and has been used in research. Various similar names have been used in early research prototypessuch as pmalloc in Mnemosyne and nvmalloc in SCMFS.

    Q. So how would PM help in a (stock broking) requirement, where we currently prophesize an RDMA or iWARP solution?

    A. With PM the answer is always lower latency.  PM can be litegrated like memory or like flash. RDMA network paths for both of these options were discussed in the presentation. In either case, PM is low-latency enough that networking and software overheads will completely determine performance, even when using RDMA. The performance boost from PM is greatest when it is accessed locally.  If remote access is a requirement then the new work being done in the RDMA community should help.

    Q. If data stored in memory requires to be copied to a different host, memory (for consistency) how does PM assist, or is there an extension to PM? Coherency between multiple hosts in a cluster, if you will?

    A. PM technology does not help with this; the methods of managing consistency across hosts remain unchanged by PM.  All PM offers is low latency persistence.

    Coordination across hosts or nodes in a cluster must use existing clustering techniques such as locking and quorums. In addition, the relative timescales of memory access and network communication suggest the application of asynchronous remote replication techniques used in today’s storage solutions.

    Regarding coherency, PM brings nothing new to the known techniques for managing coherency.  Classical cluster architecture must be applied outside of symmetric multi-processing coherency domains. Within coherency domains, all of the logic is above the PM level in a processor side memory controller or a software emulation of the same algorithms.

     

     

     

     


    Q&A on Exactly How iSCSI has Evolved

    June 3rd, 2016

    Our recent SNIA ESF Webcast, “The Evolution of iSCSI” drew a big and diverse group of attendees. From beginners looking for iSCSI basics, to experts with a lot of iSCSI deployment experience, there were plenty of good questions. Our presenters, Andy Banta and Fred Knight, did a great job answering as many as they could during the live event, but we didn’t have time to get to them all. So here are answers to them all. And by the way, if you missed the Webcast, it’s now available on-demand.

    Q. What are the top 3 reasons to choose iSCSI over FC SAN?

    A. 1. Use of commodity equipment and protocols. It means that you don’t have to set up a completely separate network. It means you don’t have to buy separate HBAs. 2. Inherent networking capability. Built on top of TCP/IP, it benefits from any networking technology to come along. These include routing, tunneling, authentication, encryption, etc. 3. Ease of automation and configuration. In it’s simplest form, an iSCSI host only needs to know the IP address of the target system. In more complex systems, hosts and storage provide APIs to allow automation through scripting or management tools.

    Q. Please comment on why SCSI went from being a widely used protocol for all sorts of devices to being focused as only essentially a storage protocol?

    A. SCSI was originally designed as both a protocol and a bus (original Parallel SCSI). Because there were no other busses, the SCSI bus did it all; disks, tapes, scanners, printers, Optical (CDs), media changers, etc. As other busses came onto the market (think USB), many of those devices moved to the new bus (CDs, printers, scanners, etc.) Commodity devices used commodity busses (IDE, SATA, USB), and enterprise devices used enterprise busses (FC, SAS); and so, disks, tapes, and media changers mostly stayed on SCSI.

    The name SCSI can be confusing for some, as the term originally was used for both the SCSI protocol and the SCSI bus. The term for the SCSI protocol is all that remains today; the SCSI bus (the old SCSI parallel bus) is no longer in wide use. Today, the FC bus, or the SAS bus, or the SoP bus, or the SRP bus are used to carry the SCSI protocol. The SCSI Architecture Model (SAM) describes a very distinct separation between the device layer (the SCSI protocol) and the transport layer (the bus).

    And, the SCSI command set has become the basis for many subsequent command sets. The JEDEC group used the SCSI command set as a model (JEDEC devices are in your cell phone), the ATAPI devices used SCSI commands, and many SCSI commands and SATA commands have a common heritage. The Mt. Fuji group (a standards group in Japan) also uses SCSI as the basis for new DVD and BlueRay devices. So, while not widely known, the SCSI command family has grown well beyond what is managed by the ANSI/INCITS T10 committee that originally defined SCSI in to a broad set of capabilities that are used across the industry, by a broad group of organizations. But, that all said, scanners and printers are still on USB, and SCSI is almost all about storage in one form or another.

    Q. How does iSCSI support software-defined storage?

    A. Answered during the talk. SDS provides more automation and knobs on the storage capabilities. But SDS still needs a way to transport the storage and iSCSI works perfectly fine for that. They are complementary technologies, not competing.

    Q. With 40Gb and faster coming soon to a server near you, what kind of impact will that have on CPU utilization? Will smaller servers be able to push that much traffic?

    A. More throughput simply requires more CPU. With good multithreaded drivers available, this can mean simply adding cores to keep the pipe as full as possible. As we mentioned near the end, using iSCSI with RDMA lightens the load on the CPU even more, so you’ll probably be seeing more of that.

    Q. Is IPSec commonly supported on iSCSI targets?  

    A. Yes, IPsec is required to be implemented on an iSCSI target to be a compliant device.  However, it is not commonly enabled by customers. If they MUST provide IPsec there are a lot of non-compliant initiators and targets on the market.

    Q. I’m told direct connect with iSCSI is discouraged, that there should be a switch in place to handle the buffering, latency, acknowledgement etc….. Is this true or a best practice to make sure switches are part of the design?

    A. If you have no need to connect to multiple targets or multiple initiators, there’s no harm in direct connections.

    Q. Ethernet was not designed to support storage traffic. The TCP/IP protocol suite was not designed to support storage traffic. SCSI was not designed to be encapsulated. So TCP/IP FTW? I think not. The reason iSCSI is exists is [perceived] cost savings. I get fed up with people constantly looking for ways to squeeze another penny out of something. To me it illustrates that they’re not very creative. Fibre Channel is a stupid name, but it is a purpose built protocol that works as designed to.

    A. Ethernet is a general purpose network. It is capable of handling lots of different traffic (including storage). By putting iSCSI onto an existing Ethernet infrastructure, it can (as you point out) create a substantial cost savings over installing a FC network (although that infrastructure savings comes with other costs – such as the impact of a shared wire). However, installing a dedicated Ethernet network provides many of the advantages of a dedicated FC network, but at an added cost over that of a shared Ethernet infrastructure. While most consider FC a purpose-built storage network, it is worth pointing out that some also consider it a general purpose network (for example FC-Avionics is built into Fighter Jets, and it’s not for storage). And while not designed to be encapsulated, (it was designed for a parallel bus), SCSI today is encapsulated on every transport that carries it (yes, that includes FCP and SAS).
    There are many kinds of storage at different price points, USB storage, SATA devices, rotating media (at different RPMs), SSD devices, SAS devices, FC devices, single spindles, arrays, cloud, drop boxes, etc., all with the corresponding transport wires. iSCSI is one of those wires. Each protocol and wire offer specific advantages and disadvantages.   There can be a lot of confusion about which to use, but just as everyone does not drive the same type car (a FORD FUSION for example), everyone does not need the same type of storage (FC devices/arrays). Yes, I drive a FORD FUSION, and I like FC storage, but I use a USB stick on my laptop, and I pray my bank never puts my financial records out in the cloud. Selecting the right storage (and wire) for the job at hand can be one of a system administrators most interesting problems to solve.As for the name – that is often what happens in committees…

    Q. As a best practice for Windows servers, disable hardware acceleration features in NICs (TOE etc.)? Are any NIC features valuable given modern multicore CPUs?

    A. Yes. Typically the only reason to disable TOE is that multiple or virtual TCP/IP stacks are going to be using the same NIC. TSO, LRO and jumbo frames will benefit any OS that can take advantage of them.

    Q. What is the advantage of iSCSI when compared with NVMe?

    A. NVMe and iSCSI are very different protocols. NVMe started life as a direct attach protocol to communicate to native PCIe devices (not even outside the box). iSCSI was a network protocol from day one. iSCSI has to deal with the potential for long network induced delays, and complex out of order error recovery issues. NVMe operates over an interlocked bus, and as such, does not have those issues.

    But, NVMe is now being extended over fabrics. NVMe over a RoCE V1 transport will be a data center network (since there is no IP routing). NVMe over a RoCE V2 transport or an iWARP transport will have the same routing capabilities that iSCSI has.   When it comes to the raw command set, they are very similar (but there are some differences). SCSI is a more full featured command set than NVMe – it has been developed over a span of over 25 years, and has developed solutions for all the problems that have been discovered during that time span. NVMe has a more limited (or more focused) command set (for example, there are no tape commands in the NVMe command set). iSCSI is available today, as is direct attach NVMe, but NVMe over Fabrics is still in the development phases (the specification is expected to be available the first week of June, 2016). NVMe products will take some time to mature and to develop solutions for the problems they have not discovered yet. Another example of this is the ability to support shared storage – it existed on day one in iSCSI, but did not exist in the first NVMe specification. To support shared storage in NVMe over Fabrics, that capability has since been added, and it was done using a SCSI compatible method (to make it easier for host S/W that already performs this function).

    There is a large community working to develop NVMe over Fabrics. As memory based storage device get cheaper, and the solution space matures, NVMe will become more attractive.

    Q. How often do iSCSI installations provide encryption of data in flight? How: IPsec, IKEv2-SCSI + ESP-SCSI, etc.?

    A. Rarely. More often than not, if in-flight data security is needed, it will be run on an isolated network. Well under 100% of installations are 100% compliant.  VMware never qualified IPsec with iSCSI and didn’t have any obvious switch to turn it on. Side note: We standards guys can be overly picky about words.  Since the question is “provide” the answer is – 100% of compliant installations PROVIDE encryption (IPsec V2 – see above), however, in practice, installations that require that type of security typically run on isolated networks, rather than turn on encryption.

    Q. How do multiple independent applications inside the same initiator map to iSCSI sessions to the same target? E.g., iSCSI session one-to-one with application?

    A. There is no relationship between applications and sessions. When an iSCSI initiator discovers a target, the initiator logs in and establishes a session. If iSCSI MCS (multi connection session) is being used, multiple TCP connections may be established and used in parallel to process operations for that session.

    Applications send reads and writes to the operating system. Those IO requests make their way through the file system and caching layers into the device driver. The device driver issues the IO request to the device (over the iSCSI session) and retains information about that IO. When a completion is received from a device (the WRITE command or READ command completed), it is matched up with the request. That completion status (success or error) is passed back through the operating system (file system, etc.) to the application. So it is the responsibility of the device driver to mux/demux the requests from all the applications out over the iSCSI session and track the responses as the operations are completed.

    When an operating system is using MPIO (multi-pathing), then the device driver may create multiple sessions between the initiator and the target. This is where operating system MPIO policies such as round-robin, shortest queue, LRU, etc. come into play. In this case, the MPIO driver will send an IO operation to the device using what it considers to be the most appropriate path (based on the selected policy). But again, there is no relationship between the application and the path used for IO (any application can have it’s IO send via any path).

    Today, MPIO is used more commonly than MCS.

    Q. Will Microsoft iSCSI implement iSER?

    A. This is a question for Microsoft or iSER-capable NIC vendor that provides Microsoft drivers.

    Q.Zadara has some iSER deployments using Linux and VMware clients going to the Zadara cloud storage.

    A. There’s an answer, all by itself.

    Q. In the case of iWARP, the TCP layer takes care of out-of-order IP packet receptions. What layer does the out-of-order management of packets in ROCE ?

    A. RoCE headers contain a 24 bit “Packet Sequence Number” that is used to validate the required ordering and detect lost packets. As such, ordering still occurs, just in a different way.

    Q. Correction: RoCE is over Ethernet packets and is not routable. RoCEv2 is the one over UDP/IP and *is* routable.

    A. You are correct. RoCE is not routable by IP. RoCE transmits raw Ethernet frames with just Ethernet MAC headers and no IP headers, and as such, it is not routable by IP. RoCE V2 puts the information into UDP packets (with appropriate IP headers), and therefore it is routable by IP.

    Q. How prevalent is iSER today in deployment? And what are some of the typical applications that leverage iSER?

    A. Not terribly prevalent today, but higher speed Ethernet might drive more adoption, due to the CPU savings demonstrated.

     

     

     


    Architectural Principles for Networked Solid State Storage Access

    May 20th, 2016

    There are many permutations of technologies, interconnects and application level approaches in play with solid state storage today.  In fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to reason clearly about which problems are best solved by various permutations of these. That’s why the SNIA Ethernet Storage Forum, together with the SNIA Solid State Storage Initiative, is hosting a live Webcast, “Architectural Principles for Networked Solid State Storage Access,” on June 2nd at 10:00 a.m. PT.

    As our presenter, we are fortunate to have Doug Voigt, chair of the SNIA NVM Programming Technical Working Group and a member of the SNIA Technical Council. Doug will outline key architectural principals that may allow us to think about the application of networked solid state technologies more systematically, answering questions such as:

    • How do applications see IO and memory access differently?
    • What is the difference between a memory and an SSD technology?
    • How do application and technology views permute?
    • How do memory and network interconnects change the equation?
    • What are persistence domains and why are they important?

    I hope you’ll register today and join us on June 2nd for an hour that is sure to be insightful.


    Find out How iSCSI is Evolving

    May 4th, 2016

    The next Ethernet Storage Forum Webcast. “Evolution of iSCSI including iSER, iSCSI over RDMA Ethernet,” will focus on developments with iSCSI – the Internet Protocol standard for transferring SCSI commands across an Ethernet network, enabling hosts to link to storage devices wherever they may be.  At this Webcast on May 24th, I will be joined by Fred Knight, Standards Technologist at NetApp, and Andy Banta, Storage Janitor at SolidFire/NetApp, who will discuss the evolution of iSCSI up to iSER, which takes advantage of Ethernet RDMA fabric technologies to enhance performance. Register now to hear:

    • A brief history of iSCSI
    • How iSCSI works
    • IETF refinements to the specification
    • Enhancing iSCSI performance with iSER

    The Webcast will be live, so please bring your questions for Andy and Fred. We hope to see you there!


    A Q&A on Storage Performance Benchmarking: Block Components

    April 21st, 2016

    For the third time, our storage performance benchmarking experts, Ken Cantrell and Mark Rogov, have generated an abundance of interest (in the form of questions) on block storage performance. If you missed the Webcast, “Storage Performance Benchmarking: Block Components,” it’s available on demand. It was no small effort to answer all the great questions that we received. And for those of you who have been waiting, we apologize, but we think the detailed and thoughtful answers Mark and Ken have put together are well worth the wait.

    Q1: Are these numbers applicable to the 90th percentile for any given storage array, please?

    Mark: These numbers represent HDD/SSD performance numbers. They aren’t meant to represent any particular storage array vendor’s performance. See the end of our presentation (bottleneck analysis) as to why it is really really hard to answer your question.

    Q2: How about NVDIMM-F or NVDIMM-P or NVDIMM-X claiming 3-4M IOPS type of Enterprise storage devices?

    Ken: Yup. They’re fast.

    There’s a great presentation by Jim Handy titled “Understanding the Intel/Micron 3D XPoint Memory” presented at SDC2015 that I’d recommend you take a look at to understand more about this kind of memory and its possible positioning.

    Mark: Great question. I think the conclusion of our presentation answers it. Flash (and we use flash as a collective term, defining everything that is not spinning storage to be “flash”) is drastically faster than spinning drives. But even within Flash, there are plenty of new technologies which compete with each other and improve the overall performance landscape. So, within the scope of our presentation, even a simple good old SLC drive tops the capability of a SAS line. If we improve on one drive, by switching the technology to a faster/newer/better variant (e.g., NVDIMM-F), or by stacking the drives, the resulting set will much more likely expose the limitations of the “regular” storage array.

    Q3: I’d like to know which tool you are using to measure IOPS if possible. 

    Ken: The SNIA Solid State Storage Initiative (SSSI) has developed substantial expertise in the area of SSD performance and behavior. The SSS Performance Test Specifications were developed by the SNIA SSS Technical Work Group (TWG) and define how to measure SSD performance in a manner that is accurate, repeatable and enables comparison between different manufacturers’ products. Learn more about the SSD Performance Project here.

    All of the Flash and HDD numbers at the beginning of the presentation were taken directly from the Solid State Storage Performance Test Specification summary results (SSS PTS). The SSS PTS provides a comprehensive method for measuring flash performance in the most vendor neutral approach that I’ve seen.

    The Flash and HDD numbers at the end of the presentation were 80% of the starting numbers – scaled down to make them slightly more like what we’ve seen in a greater number of environments (that aren’t pushing their drives as hard).

    Q4: Throughputs with SSD is not as much as one can get from a spinning drive when one keeps cost/GB on the axis. Comments please.

    Ken: Now we have 3 axes? I’m not even sure how to visualize what you’re asking, but I’m pretty sure I understand the intent … and this is a harder question than it would appear on the surface. Why?

    • First off, prices aren’t my thing – I tend to focus on the internals and let the sales guys talk prices. Additionally, vendors often engage in significant discounting or bundling that makes it difficult for the average person (i.e., me) to understand true costs.
    • The astounding random I/O performance of flash enables support for compression and deduplication without dramatically increasing client-perceived latency. There’s a reason you see so many vendors offering inline deduplication and inline compression now when they did not even five years ago – flash is the enabler that makes this happen. So what is the true comparison? Raw HDD vs Raw flash? Or Raw HDD vs flash plus the storage efficiency (SE) savings it enables? If flash with SE features (dedupe and compression), then what is the savings that you can/should expect for your dataset? 1.5x? 5x? 50x? Knowing this is a prerequisite to answering the question, and the answer will be dependent both on the vendor’s features and your own data set characteristics.
    • As we discussed in the first session, if your application/user base have some sort of minimum performance expectations, particularly around latency, then HDDs may simply not be able to provide you the performance you need. You DID mention throughput (IOPS?) explicitly and with IOPS, OPS, or data rates (MB/s), you can always match flash data rates with HDDs – it just might take a LOT more HDD drives than flash devices. Latency/response time is different though – depending on whether you are drive bound and what your I/O characteristics look like (read vs write, random vs sequential), you may simply be unable to ever hit your latency targets with HDD.
    • The world, it is a-changing. six years ago it was easy to say “SSD for performance sensitive niche applications!” and smile. Today, prices continue to drop, vendors are making new decisions around the use of consumer grade vs enterprise grade flash, and overall flash/SSD is moving much more mainstream. And … consider the new 16TB (yes 16 TERABYTE) SSD drives announced by Samsung. My personal view (and I’m explicitly disclaiming that I’m speaking on my behalf, and not NetApp’s – which honestly, you should assume for all my answers) is that these are going to change the landscape almost as dramatically as SSD itself has.
    • There are definitely vendors that believe in the cost benefits of HDD. We chose not to mention specific vendors in the webcast, but consider BackBlaze. In their blog, they are extremely open about how they have configured their data center – and they are an (all?) HDD shop. In fact, “by the end of 2015, the Backblaze datacenter had 56,224 spinning hard drives containing customer data.” Speaking of Backblaze, you might be interested in their assessment of the 16TB drive, for their shop.

    You might also be interested in slide 21 of the following, which includes some price/performance numbers from EMC and Oracle.

    Q5: Does NVMe drive technology move things to a higher level?

    Ken: If you truly mean NAND-based flash accessed via NVMe instead of SAS/SATA, yes. Look at the perf results linked out of question 3. If you mean the use of next-generation non-volatile memory (NVM) instead of NAND-based flash, then yes. The following chart is contained in a lot of SNIA presentations; I It does a good job of pointing out just how much faster we can get.

    I also strongly recommend a look through of Advances in Non-Volatile Storage Technologies by Tom Coughlin from Coughlin Associates. If you care about these topics, the SNIA Storage Developer Conference is a great opportunity to learn more.

     

    Performance Benchmarking 3 Graphic

    Q6: Why NAND gates and not AND gates?

    Mark: NAND and NOR gates are known as “universal gates”–they can be combined in various groups and combinations to do any basic operations, i.e., AND, NOT, OR, etc. So, flash manufacturers had to choose between NAND and NOR. And just like with any technology, the price drove the choice. NAND gates are simply cheaper and slower. NORs are faster and more expensive. Actually, there are some NOR products in the market.

    Q7: Mark accidently said 15K was 15,000/sec when it’s 15,000/minute.

    Ken: Thanks! (Shame on you Mark!)

    Mark: Thank you… I can’t believe that I misspoke! I never do! Never! Ahh!!!

    Mark’s Lawyer: On behalf of my client, I move to remove this question and the digital recording from Exhibit A to Exhibit B (aka “never again section”)

    Q8: Do you guys have any data about how expensive an erase-modify-write operation is, compared with spinning disks in terms of performance?

    Ken: This is what we were attempting to demonstrate in the first set of slides. The PTS (see question 3) forces flash devices into a steady state mode where they are continuously doing program-erase cycles. So the results shown there demonstrate the difference between HDD writes (seek, spin, write) and flash writes (erase and program).

    Your question made me wonder though … so I also did a quick literature search. Interesting to see how rates have changed over time, and how they vary by device:

    From M-Systems, in 2002: Erase cycle was 3ms

    From Micron, in 2006: The erase time for a 128KB erase block was 500 µs

    From AnandTech, in 2012: Erase time for SLC was 1.5-2ms, MLC was 3ms and TLC was ~4.5ms (huh? SLC vs MLC vs TLC?)

    Q9: Why can’t the pointer be at the page level instead of a block level (say, metadata within a block)? I’m sure that there is a reason. What do we gain by treating an entire block as a monolithic?

    Mark: This is an excellent question to ask Google. I think the reasons for selecting a NAND gate technology, and for bundling a bunch of NAND gates into groups and for creating blocks (in essence, super groups) is power. It takes less power to operate the drives with NAND gates and blocks.

    Q10: I heard someone mention NOR gates, instead of NAND, are NOR gates persistent, over a power cycle?

    Ken. Yes.

    Mark: There are plenty of other “Logic gates” see this article on Wikipedia for more information.

    Q11: So, there is no advantage in keeping IO sequentially in an SSD?

    Ken: Technically, or practically? Technically speaking, I think it does matter. Micron documented this in 2006, noting that “Random access time on NOR Flash is specified at 0.075μs; on NAND Flash, random access time for the first byte only is significantly slower—25μs (see Table 2 on page 5). However, after initial access has been made, the remaining 2111 bytes are shifted out of NAND at a mere 0.025μs per byte.” The raw numbers have changed over the years, but I don’t believe the principle has. Violin Memory stated in 2013 that, “The idea of sequential I/O doesn’t exist with flash memory, because there is no physical concept of blocks being adjacent or contiguous. Logically, two blocks may have consecutive block addresses, but this has no bearing on where the actual information is electronically stored. You might therefore say that all flash I/O is random, but in truth the principles of random I/O versus sequential I/O are disk concepts so they don’t really apply.”

    Practically speaking, I agree. Sequential vs random I/O is irrelevant for flash. Given (a) average I/O sizes for workloads and (b) the incredible performance of flash devices compared to the needs of the vast majority of people using them, it doesn’t much matter if you can access subsequent bytes in a NAND-based flash device faster than you can access the first bytes. They are plenty fast enough.

    Note that it is hard to find public info on this. Sequential I/O tends to use larger I/O sizes, and random I/O uses smaller I/O sizes. So finding apples-to-apples comparisons between sequential and random I/O is difficult.

    Mark: Yes, the flash drive doesn’t care anymore. But the hosts and application still do. Where it matters is in the workloads. Ken and I are still planning to dedicate an entire hour talking about workloads, and Random vs. Sequential will surely be a large part of it. However, we will admit that in the future, when all storage will be flash (which is, of course, a pipe dream) it won’t matter anymore.

    Q12: What is the acceptance level to Erasure Coding, and hence the change in the way Storage Performance testing will change?

    Mark: As we said during the webcast, RAID is a special case of Erasure Coding. Therefore its acceptance rate is 100% J But on a more serious note, Erasure Coding is necessary for any scale out system: and every vendor uses their own N+M rules.

    Q13: Is RAID-1 always half the write performance? If the writes go to both drives simultaneously, I could see write performance being less than 100% of what one drive can do, but not half.

    Ken: This was asked in a dry run as well. You’ve hit on something that seems to be a sticking point for multiple people. Perhaps consider it this way. It looks mathy and complicated, but bear with me …

    Consider two physical drives. Call them P1 and P2.

    Let the write performance (in iops) of P1 be P1w.

    Let the write performance (in iops) of P2 be P2w.

    How fast can P1 write? P1w.

    How fast can P2 write? P2w.

    If you can write to both P1 and P2 at the same time, independently, and completely in parallel, how fast can you write in aggregate? P1w + P2w.

    For the previous question, what if P1w = P2w?

    Then P1w + P2w = P1w + P1w = (2)*P1w.

    Now …

    Consider a RAID-1 pair comprised of the same P1 and P2. Call it R1.

    Writes can be sent (in a good implementation) to both P1 and P2 at the same time.

    But, before a write is considered complete, it must be acknowledged by BOTH P1 and P2.

    If P1w > P2w, what is the best performance of R1? P2w. P2 is slower, so we’ll always be waiting on it (assuming performance is consistent), so the best we can do is P2w.

    Same logic if P1w < P2w.

    What if P1w = P2w? What is the best performance of R1? Same logic … but since they are the same speed, it is simply P1w.

    So …

    In the non-RAID-1 case, our performance (assuming P1w = P2w) was 2 * P1w.

    In the RAID-1 case, our performance (assuming P1w = P2w) is P1w.

    50% reduction.

    RAID-1 only achieves ½ of what the physical pair could. 

    Mark: What Ken said.

    Q14: Is there any kind of “asynch” RAID1 so that I can keep the performance of the disks but keep the mirroring?

    Ken: See the previous answer also.

    For reads, certainly. For writes, not that I know of, although you can make it much less visible. For example, if you have a caching RAID controller/system, your writes will go to memory and then go to disk whenever the controller/system decides to flush it. Perhaps it is big enough that it turns random I/O into sequential I/O (and you’re on HDDs) and the perf improvement from doing sequential instead (instead of random) is enough you don’t notice the effect of RAID itself.

    Mark: I think that in reality, the behavior of a particular implementation is always vendor-dependent. Generally speaking, RAID1 does allow the reading from both drives, but budgets or software bugs or just plain ignorance could result in an implementation where that is not true. Address vendor documentation to know for sure.

    Q15: Why do you need to read old parity to recalculate and write a new one? Isn’t the parity only calculated based on the data being written?

    Ken: See answer to question #14.

    Mark: It is a math trick… reading the parity saves reading the rest of the blocks on the full stripe. With 3 drives the savings are non-obvious, but with 5 or 14 there are significant.

    Q16: This calculation is correct for 3 disks, right? If there are more disks and partial write is for stripe on single drive then you need to read more to calculate parity

    Ken: No. There are some great write-ups about how RAID-5 works. Instead of pasting those here, I strongly encourage you to visit http://rickardnobel.se/how-raid5-works/ AND http://rickardnobel.se/raid-5-write-penalty/ and then tweet Mark (@markrogov) or Ken (@kencantrelljr) with questions/follow-up.

    (I have no connection to Rickard … I just think he’s done a great job in his write-up.)

    Mark: Yes, Rickard’s write up is spot on. Our goal is to introduce a fairly complex subject in a deceivingly simple manner. There are many edge cases that we don’t address: partial write to sector, partial write to a block, partial write a stripe… all those have their own consequences, and storage vendors deal with those differently.

    Q17: I am also interested in Data Recovery on NAND technology

    Ken: Me too. It isn’t a topic we’re planning to cover though.

    Q18: Does caching write data help when one uses SSD?

    Ken: It can. Memory is still faster than flash. It depends entirely on how the memory is used. For example, with writes, if memory were used as a write-through cache (look it up if you need), it wouldn’t make things faster. If it were used as a write-back cache, it would. If it is used as a read cache, it will almost certainly make reads of data faster. But even there, life is never simple. Why? Because if you’re using memory to cache data, you’re not using it for something else … and it is possible that the memory could be better used for caching metadata, for example.

    Mark: Here, I’d like to recall our good friend, Dr. J Metz, who created an excellent presentation on comparing computer caches to pizza delivery in “Life of a Storage Packet (Walk)” And in his example, caching will keep the pizza warmer. Even if a flash drive is used.

    Q19: If the customer is interested in throughput in MB/s then they probably won’t do IOs with 4KB size…

    Ken: Agreed. I’m fairly certain that you’re referring to adding MB/s numbers on slide 41. We had a discussion about doing that when putting the slides together. The transition between slide 40 and 42 changed the I/O size from 4KiB to 128KiB, changed from writes to reads, and changed from random I/O to sequential I/O. Adding the MB/s numbers to slide 40/41 was meant to ease the transition between slide 40 and 42. You’re absolutely right though … rarely does anyone want to talk data rates (MB/s) when using small I/O sizes.

    Mark: Agreed. Although a true performance guru would recognize that these are the two sides of the same coin.


    Questions Aplenty on NVMe over Fabrics

    April 12th, 2016

    Our live SNIA-ESF Webcast, “Under the Hood with NVMe over Fabrics,” generated more questions than we anticipated, proving to us that this topic is worthy of future discussions. Here are answers to both the questions we took during the live event as well as those we didn’t have time for.

    Q. So fabric is an alternative to PCIe, for those of us familiar with PCIe-attached NVMe devices, yes?

    A. Yes, fabric is the term used in the specification that represents a variety of physical interconnects and transports for NVM Express.

    Q. How are the namespaces shared in a fabric?

    A. Namespaces are NVM subsystem resources and are accessible by all controllers in the NVM subsystem. Multi-host access may be coordinated using reservations.

     Q. If there are multiple subsystems accessing same NVMe devices over fabric then how is namespace shared?

    A. The mapping of fabric NVM subsystem resources (namespaces and controllers) to PCIe NVMe device subsystems is implementation specific. They may be mapped 1 to 1 or N to 1, depends on the functionality of the NVMe bridge.

    Q. Are namespace reservations similar to SCSI reservations?

    A. Yes

    Q. Are there plans for defining bindings for Intel Omni Path fabric?

    A. Intel Omni-Path is a good candidate fabric for NVMe over Fabrics.

    Q. Is hybrid attachment allowed? Could a single namespace be attached to a fabric and PCIe (through two controllers) concurrently?

    A. At this moment, such hybrid configuration is not permitted within the specification

    Q. Is a NVM sub-system purpose built or commodity server hardware?

    A. This is a difficult question to answer. At the time of this writing there are not enough “off-the-shelf” commodity components to be able to construct NVMe over Fabric subsystems.

    Q. Does NVMEoF use the same NVMe PCIe controller register map?

    A. A subset of the NVMe controller register mapping was retained for fabrics but renamed to “Properties” to avoid confusion.

    Q. So does NVMe over Fabric act like an extension of the PCIe bus? Meaning that I see the same MMIO registers and queues remotely? Or is it a completely different protocol that is solely message based? Will current NVMe host drivers work on the fabric or does it really require a different driver stack?

    A. Fabrics is not an extension of PCIe, it’s an extension of NVMe. It uses the same NVMe Submission and Completion Queue model and Descriptors as the PCIe NVMe. Most of the original NVMe host driver stack is retained and shared between PCIe and Fabrics, the bottom side was modified to allow for multiple transports.

    Q. Does NVMe over Fabrics support immediate data for writes, or must write data always be fetched by the NVMe controller?

    A. Yes, immediate data is termed “in-capsule” and is used to send the NVMe command data with the NVMe submission entry.

    Q. As far as I know, Linux introduced a multi-queue model at the block layer recently. Is it the same thing you are mentioning?

    A. No, but NVMe uses the Linux Block-MQ layer. NVMe Multi-Queue is used between the host and the NVMe controller for both PCIe and fabric based controllers.

    Q. Are there situations where you might want to have more than one queue pair per CPU? What are they?

    A. Queue-Pairs are matched up by CPU cores, not CPUs, which allows the creation of multiple namespace entities per CPU. This, in turn, is very useful for virtualization and application separation.

    Q. What are three mandatory commands? Do they refer to read/write/sync cache?

    A. Actually, there are 13 required commands. Kevin Marks has a very good presentation from the Flash Memory Summit that provides a list of these commands within the broader NVMe context. You can download it here.  

    Q. Please talk about queue depths? Arbitrary? Limited?

    A. Controller defined maximum queue depths up to a maximum of 64K entries.

    Q. Where will SQs and CQs be physically located? Are they on host memory or SSD memory?

    A. For fabrics, the SQ is located on the controller side to avoid the inefficiency of having to pull SQE’s across a fabric. CQ’s reside on the host.

    Q. How do you create ordering guarantee when that is needed for correctness?

    A. For commands that require sequencing, there is a concept called “Fused Commands” which get sent as a single unit.

    Q. In NVMeoF how are devices discovered?

    A. NVMeoF devices are discoverable via a couple of different means, depending on whether you are using Fibre Channel (which has its own discovery and login process) or an iSCSI-like name server. Mike Shapiro goes over the discovery mechanism in considerable detail in this BrightTALK Webcast.
    Q. I guess all new drivers will be required for NVMeoF?

    A. Yes, new drivers are being written and will be required for NVMeoF.

    Q. Why can’t the doorbell+ plus communication model apply to PCIe? I mean, why doesn’t PCIe use doorbell+?

    A. NVMe 1.2 defines controller resident buffers that can be used for pushing SQ Entries from the host to the controller. Doorbells are still required for PCIe to inform the controller about the new SQ entries.

    Q. If there are two hosts connected to the same subsystem then will NVMe controller have two queues :- one for each host

    A. Yes

    Q. So with your command and data description, does NVMe over Fabric require RDMA or does it have a “Data Ready” type message to tell the host when to send write data?

    A. Data transfer operations are fabric dependent. RDMA uses RDMA_READ, another transport may use some form of Data Ready model.

    Q. Can you quantify the protocol translation overhead? In reality, that does not look like that big from performance perspective.

    A. Submission Queue entries are 64bytes and Completion Queue entries are 16bytes. These are sufficiently small for block storage traffic which typically is in 4K+ size requests. 

    Q. Do Dual Port SSDs need to support two Admin Qs since they have two paths to the same host?

    A. Dual-Port or multi-path capable NVM subsystems require using two NVMe controllers each with one AdminQ and one or more IO queues. 

    Q. For a Dual Port SSD, does each port need to have its Submission Q on a different CPU core in the host? I assume the SQs for the two ports cannot be on the same CPU core.

    A. The mapping of controller queues to host CPU cores is typically per controller. If the host was connected to two controllers, there would be two queues per core. One queue to controller 1 and one queue to controller 2 per host core.

    Q. As you mentioned currently there is an LBA addressing in standard. What will happen when Intel will go to market with new media (3D Point), which is announced to be byte addressable?

    A. The NVMe NVM command set is block based and is independent of the type and access method of the NVM media used in a subsystem implementation.  

    Q. Is there a real benefit of this architecture in a NAS environment?

    A. There is a natural advantage to making any storage access more efficient. A network-attached system still requires block access at the lower levels, and NVMe (either local or over a Fabric) can improve NAS design and flexibility immensely. This is particularly true for pNFS and scale-out SMB paradigms.

    Q. How do you handle authentication across many servers (hosts) on the fabric? How do you decide what host can access what part of each device? Does it have to be namespace specific?

    A. The fabrics specification defines an Authentication model and also defines the naming format for NVM subsystems and hosts. A target implementation can choose to provision NVM subsystems to specific host based on the naming format.

    Q. Having same structure at all layers means at the transport layer of flash appliance also we should maintain the submission and completions Queue model and these mapped to physical Queue of NVMe sub controller?

    A. The NVMe Submission Queue and Completion Queue entries are common between fabrics and PCIe NVMe. This simplifies the steps required to bridge between NVMe fabrics and NVMe PCIe. An implementation may choose to map the fabrics SQ directly to a PCIe NVMe SSD SQ to provide a very efficient simple NVMe transport bridge

    Q. With an RDMA based transport, how will each host discover the NVME controller(s) that it has been granted access to?

    A. Please see the answer above.

    Q. Traditionally SAS supports SAS expander for scaling purpose. How does NVMe over fabric solve the issue as there is no expander concept in NVMe world?

    A. Recall that SAS expanders compensate for SCSI’s inherent lack of scalability. NVMe perpetuates the multi-queue model (which does not exist for SCSI) natively, so SAS expander-like pieces are not required for scale-out.

     

     

     

     


    Ethernet RDMA Protocols Support for NVMe over Fabrics – Your Questions Answered

    March 21st, 2016

    Our recent SNIA Ethernet Storage Forum Webcast on How Ethernet RDMA Protocols iWARP and RocE Support NVMe over Fabrics generated a lot of great questions. We didn’t have time to get to all of them during the live event, so as promised here are the answers. If you have additional questions, please comment on this blog and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.

    Q. Are there still actual (memory based) submission and completion queues, or are they just facades in front of the capsule transport?

    A. On the host side, they’re “facades” as you call them. When running NVMe/F, host reads and writes do not actually use NVMe submission and completion queues. That data just comes from and to RNIC RDMA queues. On the target side, there could be real NVMe submissions and completion queues in play. But the more accurate answer is that it is “implementation dependent.”

    Q. Who places the command from NVMe queue to host RDMA queue from software standpoint?

    A. This is managed by the kernel host software in code written to the NVMe/F specification. The idea is that any existing application that thinks it is writing to the existing NVMe host software will in fact cause the SQE entry to be encapsulated and placed in an RDMA send queue.

    Q. You say “most enterprise switches” support NVMe/F over RDMA, I guess those are ‘new’ ones, so what is the exact question to ask a vendor about support in an older switch?

    A. For iWARP, any switch that can handle Internet traffic will do. Mellanox and Intel have different answers for RoCE / RoCEv2. Mellanox says that for RoCE, it is recommended, but not required, that the switch support Priority Flow Control (PFC). Most new enterprise switches support PFC, but you should check with your switch vendor to be sure. Intel believes RoCE was architected around DCB. The name itself, RoCE, stands for “RDMA over Converged Ethernet,” i.e., Ethernet with DCB. Intel believes RoCE in general will require PFC (or some future standard that delivers equivalent capabilities) for efficient RDMA over Ethernet.

    Q. Can you comment on when one should use RoCEv2 vs. iWARP?

    A. We gave a high-level overview of some of the deployment considerations on slide 30. We refer you to some of the vendor links on slide 32 for “non-vendor neutral” perspectives.

    Q. If you take RDMA out of equation, what is the key advantage of NVMe/F over other protocols? Is it that they are transparent to any application?

    A. NVMe/F allows the application to bypass the SCSI stack and uses native NVMe commands across a network. Most other block storage protocols require using the SCSI protocol layer, translating the NVMe commands into SCSI commands. With NVMe/F you also gain parallelism, simplicity of the command set, a separation between administrative sessions and data sessions, and a reduction of latency and processing required for NVMe I/O operations.

    Q. Is ROCE v1 compatible with ROCE v2?

    A. Yes. Adapters speaking RoCEv2 can also maintain RDMA connections with adapters speaking RoCEv1 because RoCEv2 ports are backwards interoperable with RoCEv1. Most of the currently shipping NICs supporting RoCE support both RoCEv1 and RoCEv2.

    Q. Are RoCE and iWARP the only way to use Ethernet as a fabric for NMVe/F?

    A. Initially yes; only iWARP and RoCE are supported for NVMe over Ethernet. But the NVM Express Working Group is also targeting FCoE. We should have probably been clearer about that, though it is noted on slide 11.

    Q. What about doing NVMe over Fibre Channel? Is anyone looking at, or doing this?

    A. Yes. This is not in scope for the first spec release, but the NVMe WG is collaborating with the FCIA on this. So NVMe over Fibre Channel is expected as another standard in the near future, to be promoted by T11.

    Q. Do RoCE and iWARP both use just IP addresses for management or is there a higher level addressing mechanism, and management?

    A. RoCEv2 uses the RoCE Connection Manager, and iWARP uses TCP connection management. They both use IP for addressing.

    Q. Are there other fabrics to run NVMe over fabrics? Can you do this over OmniPath or Infiniband?

    A. InfiniBand is in scope for the first spec release. Also, there is a related effort by the FCIA to support NVMe over Fibre Channel in a standard that will be promoted by T11.

    Q. You indicated NVMe stack is in kernel while RDMA is a user level verb. How are NVMe SQ/ CQ entries transferred from NVMe to RDMA and vice versa? Also, could smaller transfers in NVMe (e.g. SGL of 512B) combined to larger sizes before being sent to RDMA entries and vice versa?

    A. NVMe/F supports multiple scatter gather entries to combine multiple incontinuous transfers, nevertheless, the protocol doesn’t support chaining multiple NVMe commands on the same command capsule. A command capsule contains only a single NVMe command. Please also refer to slide 18 from the presentation.

    Q. 1) How do implementers and adopters today test NVMe deployments? 2) Besides latency, what other key performance indicators do implements and adopters look for to determine whether the NVMe deployment is performing well or not?

    A. 1) Like any other datacenter specification, testing is done by debugging, interop testing and plugfests. Local NVMe is well supported and can be tested by anyone. NVMe/F can be tested using pre-standard drivers or solutions from various vendors. UNH-IOH is an organization with an excellent reputation for helping here. 2) Latency, yes. But also sustained bandwidth, IOPS, and CPU utilization, i.e., the “usual suspects.”

    Q. If RoCE CM supports ECN, why can’t it be used to implement a full solution without requiring PFC?

    A. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is an extension to TCP/IP defined by the IETF. First point is that it is a standard for congestion notification, not congestion management. Second point is that it operates at L3/L4. It does nothing to help make the L2 subnet “lossless.” Intel and Mellanox agree that generally speaking, all RDMA protocols perform better in a “lossless,” engineered fabric utilizing PFC (or some future standard that delivers equivalent capabilities). Mellanox believes PFC is recommended but not strictly required for RoCE, so RoCE can be deployed with PFC, ECN, or both. In contrast, Intel believes that for RoCE / RoCEv2 to deliver the “lossless” performance users expect from an RDMA fabric, PFC is in general required.

    Q. How involved are Ethernet RDMA efforts with the SDN/OCP community? Is there a coming example of RoCE or iWarp on an SDN switch?

    A. Good question, but neither RoCEv2 nor iWARP look any different to switch hardware than any other Ethernet packets. So they’d both work with any SDN switch. On the other hand, it should be possible to use SDN to provide special treatment with respect to say congestion management for RDMA packets. Regarding the Open Compute Project (OCP), there are various Ethernet NICs and switches available in OCP form factors.

    Q. Is there a RoCE v3?

    A. No. There is no RoCEv3.

    Q. iWARP and RoCE both fall back to TCP/IP in the lowest communication sense? So they are somewhat compatible?

    A. They can speak sockets to each other. In that sense they are compatible. However, for the usage model we’re considering here, NVMe/F, RDMA is required. Because of L3/L4 differences, RoCE and iWARP RNICs cannot speak RDMA to each other.

    Q. So in case of RDMA (ROCE or iWARP), the NVMe controller’s fabric port is Ethernet?

    A. Correct. But it must be RDMA-enabled Ethernet.

    Q. What if I am using soft RoCE, do I still need an RNIC?

    A. Functionally, soft RoCE or soft iWARP should work on a regular NIC. Whether the performance is sufficient to keep up with NVMe SSDs without the hardware offloads is a different matter.

    Q. How would the NVMe controller know that a command is placed in the submission queue by the Fabric host driver? Is the fabric host driver responsible for notifying the NVMe controller through remote doorbell trigger or the Fabric target driver should trigger the doorbell?

    A. No separate notification by the host required. The fabric’s host driver simply sends a command capsule to notify its companion subsystem driver that there is a new command to be processed. The way that the subsystem side notifies the backend NVMe drive is out of the scope of the protocol.

    Q. I am chair of ETSI NFV working group on NFV acceleration. We are working on virtual RDMA and how VM can benefit from hardware independent RDMA. One corner stone of this is virtual-RDMA pseudo device. But there is not yet consensus on minimal set of verbs to be supported: Do you think this minimal verb set can be identified? Last, the transport address space is not consistent between IB, Ethernet. How supporting transport independent RDMA?

    A. You know, the NVM Express Working Group is working on exactly these questions. They have to define a “minimal verb set” since NVMe/F generates the verbs. Similarly, I’d suggest looking to the spec to see how they resolve the transport address space differences.

    Q. What’s the plan for Linux submission of NVMe over Fabric changes? What releases are being targeted?

    A. The Linux Driver WG in the NVMe WG expects to submit code upstream within a quarter of the spec being finalized. At this time it looks like the most likely Linux target will be kernel 4.6, but it could end up being kernel 4.7.

    Q. Are NVMe SQ/CQ transferred transparently to RDMA Queues or can they be modified?

    A. The method defined in the NVMe/F specification entails a transparent transfer. If you wanted to modify an SQE or CQE, do so before initiating an NVMe/F operation.

    Q. How common are rNICs for recent servers? i.e. What’s a quick check I can perform to find out if my NIC is an rNIC?

    A. rNICs are offered by nearly all major server vendors. The best way to check is to ask your server or NIC vendor if your NIC supports iWARP or RoCE.

    Q. This is most likely out of the scope of this talk but could you perhaps share about 30K level on the differences between “NVMe controller” hardware versus “NVMeF” hardware. It’s most likely a combination of R-NIC+NVMe controller, but would be great to get your take on this.

    A goal of the NVMe/F spec is that it work with all existing NVMe controllers and all existing RoCE and iWARP RNICs.  So on even a very low level, we can say “no difference.”  That said, of course, nothing stops someone from combining NVMe controller and rNIC hardware into one solution.

    Q. Are there any example Linux targets in the distros that exercise RDMA verbs? An iWARP or iSER target in a distro?

    A. iSER allows this using a LIO or TGT SCSI target.

    Q. Is there a standard or IP for RDMA NIC?

    A. The various RNICs are based on IBTA, IETF, and IEEE standards are shown on slide 26.

    Q. What is the typical additional latency introduced comparing NVMe over Fabric vs. local NVMe?

    A. In the 2014 IDF demo, the prototype NVMe/F stack matched the bandwidth of local NVMe with a latency penalty of only 8µs over a local iWARP connection. Other demonstrations have shown an added fabric latency of 3µs to 15µs. The goal for the final spec is under 10µs.

    Q. How well is NVME over RDMA supported for Windows ?

    A. It is not currently supported, but then the spec isn’t even finished. Contract Microsoft if you are interested in their plans.

    Q. RDMA over Ethernet would not support Layer 2 switching? How do you deal with TCP over head?

    A. L2 switching is supported by both iWARP and RoCE. Both flavors of RNICs have MAC addresses, etc. iWARP had to deal with TCP/IP in hardware, a TCP/IP Offload Engine or TOE. The TOE used in an iWARP RNIC is significantly constrained compared to a general purpose TOE and therefore can operate with very high performance. See the Chelsio website for proof points. RoCE does not use TCP so does not need to deal with TCP overhead.

    Q. Does RDMA not work with fibre channel?

    A. They are totally different Transports (L4) and Networks (L3). That said, the FCIA is working with NVMe, Inc. on supporting NVMe over Fibre Channel in a standard to be promoted by T11.