On 1/8/2015 4:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 01/08/15 14:45, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Actually I started with that approach, but the independent connections
under a single session (I-T-Nexus) violates the command ordering
requirement. Plus, such a solution is specific to iSER...
Hello Sagi,
Which command ordering requirement are you referring to ? The Linux
storage stack does not guarantee that block layer or SCSI commands will
be processed in the same order as these commands have been submitted.
I was referring to the iSCSI session requirement. I initially thought of
an approach to maintain multiple iSER connections under a single session
but pretty soon I realized that preserving commands ordering this way
is not feasible. So independent iSER connections means independent
iSCSI sessions (each with a single connection). This is indeed another
choice, which we are clearly debating on...
I'm just wandering if we are not trying to force-fit this model. How
would this model look like? We will need to define another entity to
track and maintain the sessions and to allocate the scsi_host. Will that
be communicated to user-space? How will error recovery look like?
Sagi.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
