On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 14:02 -0500, Andrew Theurer wrote: > Hello, > > First, thanks for this great project! We have been using the FC target > for a few months now for KVM disk IO scalability analysis, and it has > been a great resource for us! We're able to do >1.4 M IOPS with > multiple VMs via PCI-pass-through, and we're now testing virtio > scalability enhancements, so it's been an incredibly useful feature for > us! > Thanks for sharing Andrew! Glad to see others are also pushing > 1M IOPs workloads with the mainline kernel target. Out of curiosity, would you mind sharing how many LUNs you needed to push 1.4M IOPs..? Also when you say the 'FC Target', I assume you mean tcm_fc(FCoE) fabric driver, yes..? > We are now trying to create a test-bed with FCoE, with only FCoE targets > and initiators (no FCF's). For the moment, I am trying a > directly-connected 82599EB adapters from two systems (one the target, > the other the initiator). These interfaces are configured for IP and > ping-able. I created vn2vn FC ports and I now have 1 fc_host per > system. I have created a target on one via targetcli with a single LUN: > > > > /> ls > > o- / ......................................................................................................... [...] > > o- backstores .............................................................................................. [...] > > | o- block .................................................................................... [0 Storage Object] > > | o- fileio ................................................................................... [1 Storage Object] > > | | o- lun1 ..................................................................... [/tmp/lun1.img (1.0G) activated] > > | o- pscsi .................................................................................... [0 Storage Object] > > o- loopback ........................................................................................... [0 Target] > > o- tcm_fc ............................................................................................. [1 Target] > > o- 20:00:00:1b:21:4b:0a:0e ........................................................................... [enabled] > > o- acls .............................................................................................. [1 ACL] > > | o- 20:00:00:1b:21:67:5f:2a .................................................................. [1 Mapped LUN] > > | o- mapped_lun1 ................................................................... [lun1 fileio/lun1 (rw)] > > o- luns .............................................................................................. [1 LUN] > > o- lun1 ...................................................................... [fileio/lun1 (/tmp/lun1.img)] > > The initiator has a port name of 0x2000001b21675f2a and both target and > initiator ports are "Online". However, after re-scanning for devices, > the initiator does not find any new LUNs. > > I tried to do a fcping, but I can only successfully ping a FC ID, and > not a port name: > > > [root@spv-21 ~]# fcping -c 3 -h eth6 -F 0x000a0e > > sending echo to 0xA0E > > echo 1 accepted 0.468 ms > > echo 2 accepted 0.428 ms > > echo 3 accepted 0.462 ms > > 3 frames sent, 3 received 0 errors, 0.000% loss, avg. rt time 0.453 ms > > > [root@spv-21 ~]# fcping -h eth6 -N 0x2000001b214b0a0e > > GID_NN error: Invalid argument > > cannot find fcid of destination @ wwnn 0x2000001B214B0A0E > > I am wondering if there's still a connectivity problem. [Not knowing > much about the world of FC] Is there some sort of wwnn-to-fcid mapping > that I am missing? Or maybe something else? > Mmmm, not sure what is going on here with this particular setup. CC'ing MDR & Kiran @ Intel + OpenFCoE list who will have a better idea how to start debug this.. --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
