On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2018-04-06 02:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:24:18AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>> >>> Ah. Far better. >>> What about delegating FORMAT UNIT to the control LUN, and not >>> implementing it for the individual disk LUNs? >>> That would make an even stronger case for having a control LUN; >>> with that there wouldn't be any problem with having to synchronize >>> across LUNs etc. >> >> >> It sounds to me like NVMe might be a much better model for this drive >> than SCSI, btw :) > > > So you found a document that outlines NVMe's architecture! Could you > share the url (no marketing BS, please)? > > > And a serious question ... How would you map NVMe's (in Linux) > subsystem number, controller device minor number, CNTLID field > (Identify ctl response) and namespace id onto the SCSI subsystem's > h:c:t:l ? > > Doug Gilbert > Hannes- yes, a drive system altering operation like FORMAT UNIT is asking for a dedicated management port, as the NVMe folks apparently felt. But what is the least painful endpoint type for LUN0? -- Tim Walker Product Design Systems Engineering, Seagate Technology (303) 775-3770
