On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:07:23 +1000 ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM, FUJITA Tomonori > <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:07:24 +0300 > > Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > >> > I know that but it doesn't sound good to me. How can you handle isns_port? > >> > tgtd --port=3260 --iscsi=isns-port=1000 > >> > tgtd --iscsi=iscsi-port=3260,isns-port=1000 > >> > The latter looks more consistent to me. > >> > >> I am fine with both approaches > > > > Everyone, other opinions? > > > > I think it would make more sense to separate the port specified for > the mgmt channel from the iscsi related ports. > since it may be desireable to also run multiple instances of tgtd for > fcoe as well and then --iscsi-port would not make sense. Yeah, agreed. I don't fancy '--port' much though. It's a bit too generic. I prefer something like '--mport' (or '--manage-port'). > So I think it would be better with > --port=1234 --iscsi=iscsi-port=3260,isns-port=1000 > > Or even better : > --port=1234 --iscsi-portal=10.0.0.1 --iscsi-port=3260 --isns-port=1000 Implementing the latter is tricky because we want to pass iscsi parameters to only iscsi code instead of having the global option parser as Linux kernel does. > Where --port only refers to the mgmt socket, which is unique for each > instance of tgtd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
