FCP-2 recovery problem

Binford, Charles cbinford at lsil.com
Mon Jun 26 10:54:43 PDT 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Binford, Charles" <cbinford at lsil.com>
*
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFDF97.A052CD20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I don't think need to address anything beyond the specific whole Dave
Baldwin described (which his proposal handles).  The Multi-Lun issue
came up to explain why other solutions (e.g. mine!) don't work.  I am
unaware of any other cases that are broken, even with multi-Lun
considerations.

Charles Binford 
LSI Logic Storage Systems 
(316) 636-8566 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Zeitler, Carl [ mailto:Carl.Zeitler at compaq.com
 ] 
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 12:53 PM 
To: 'David A. Peterson'; Binford, Charles 
Cc: T10 at t10.org; 'FC Reflector' 
Subject: RE: FCP-2 recovery problem 


All my thinking the past has been implicitly based on an I-T nexus and
NEVER 
on an I-T-L nexus.  This adds a whole new dimension to the equation. If
we 
are going to go back and add LUNs to qualify an Exchange, I believe we
have 
some major, major re-thinking to do.  This would have to be a global
change 
to Fibre Channel, at the FC-FS level.  Class 2 doesn't work either for 
I-T-L.  RX-IDs are just as ambiguous as OX_IDs; they are I-T based, not 
I-T-L based.  To be completely pure and pristine, which I believe we
have to 
be at this level, we would have to add 8 bytes to the FC Header.  Maybe
we 
need to follow the FC-VI track of putting the LUN in a Device Header for

FCP-2, if this is what needs to be done to solve this problem!! 

Regards, 


Carl 


------_=_NextPart_001_01BFDF97.A052CD20
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

RE: FCP-2 recovery problem I don't think need to address anything beyond the = specific whole Dave Baldwin described (which his proposal = handles).  The Multi-Lun issue came up to explain why other = solutions (e.g. mine!) don't work.  I am unaware of any other = cases that are broken, even with multi-Lun considerations. Charles Binford 
LSI Logic Storage Systems 
(316) 636-8566 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Zeitler, Carl [mailto:Carl.Zeitler at compaq.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 12:53 PM 
To: 'David A. Peterson'; Binford, Charles 
Cc: T10 at t10.org; 'FC Reflector' 
Subject: RE: FCP-2 recovery problem 
All my thinking the past has been implicitly based on = an I-T nexus and NEVER 
on an I-T-L nexus.  This adds a whole new = dimension to the equation. If we 
are going to go back and add LUNs to qualify an = Exchange, I believe we have 
some major, major re-thinking to do.  This = would have to be a global change 
to Fibre Channel, at the FC-FS level.  Class 2 = doesn't work either for 
I-T-L.  RX-IDs are just as ambiguous as OX_IDs; = they are I-T based, not 
I-T-L based.  To be completely pure and = pristine, which I believe we have to 
be at this level, we would have to add 8 bytes to = the FC Header.  Maybe we 
need to follow the FC-VI track of putting the LUN in = a Device Header for 
FCP-2, if this is what needs to be done to solve = this problem!! Regards, 
Carl 
------_=_NextPart_001_01BFDF97.A052CD20--




More information about the T10 mailing list