On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:21:11 +1000 ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So you would recommend that it would be one single target and then an > ACL-like setting on a per initiator basis > to control readwrite/readonly access to the lun. > > a, > The simple way would then be to create some setting/mechanism where > one could control this from one single target but on a > per initiator basis. Kind of like the ACLs, but while ACLs work on a > target, this setting would work on a Target+Lun basis. I prefer this. But to be honest, I'm not interested in this feature much. It would be nice but it's not a must for me. > b, > Something that would be a lot more work, since it would require a lot > of additional infrastructure would be a question of > 1, "how to keep metadata in sync across multiple targets", > or, since we support multiple concurrent instances of tgtd : > 2, "how to keep metadata in sync across multiple separate > processes/instances of tgtd." I will never do this. This needs tons of complicated changes (locking, etc). It doesn't worth it. As I said before, tgt officially doesn't support multiple instances. It's the advanced feature for users who fully knows what they are doing. -- 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
