Smart, James [James.Smart@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 09:49, Philip R. Auld wrote: > > > It needs to be known to the pathing layer if you've got > > load balancing. > > > It has to know which path has the reservation and only use that one. > > > > Well, yes, but your multiple active path implementation just collapsed > > back down to single path in the face of reservations, so it would > > probably be better simply to use failover in the face of reservations > > and clustering. > > Why do you imply that you're down to a single path ? With multiple port > devices, and the T10 unclarity on multiport support, simple reservations > didn't bring you down to the single port access you are describing. Some > devices may have implemented it this way, but the standard didn't say they > had to or even that they should. > > And this picture changes significantly with the use of Persistent > Reservations and the use of keys. > It appears you are mixing port and path. If you have multiple paths to a port created by multiple adapters connecting to this port through a bus, fabric, etc. then simple reservations should restrict you to only one path to this port. Is there a device that implements simple reservations and allows multiple initiators access? -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@xxxxxxxxxx
