FW: PERSISTENT RESERVE/RESERVE Interoperability

Ulrich, David dulrich at lsil.com
Wed Oct 17 06:38:23 PDT 2001


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Ulrich, David" <dulrich 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_01C15710.FE327F20
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would have thought that the following paragraph under section 5.5.1
(Reservations Overview) would apply. 

The two methods are prevented from creating conflicting and undefined
interactions using RESERVATION 
CONFLICT status in the following manner. If a logical unit has executed
a PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT 
command with the REGISTER or the REGISTER AND IGNORE EXISTING KEY
service action and is still registered 
by any initiator, all RESERVE commands and all RELEASE commands
regardless of initiator shall conflict 
and shall terminate with a RESERVATION CONFLICT status. If a logical
unit has been reserved by any RESERVE 
command and is still reserved by any initiator, all PERSISTENT RESERVE
IN and all PERSISTENT RESERVE 
OUT commands shall conflict regardless of initiator or service action
and shall terminate with a RESERVATION 
CONFLICT status. 

David Ulrich 
LSI Logic Storage Systems 
Wichita KS 

-----Original Message----- 
From: George Penokie [ mailto:gop at us.ibm.com  ] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 8:10 AM 
To: Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com 
Cc: t10 at t10.org 
Subject: Re: PERSISTENT RESERVE/RESERVE Interoperability 


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* "George Penokie" <gop at us.ibm.com> 
* 

Actually, it is not clear at all as to whether a reservation conflict is

returned after a PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT (REGISTER) is executed and a
before 
a PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT (RESERVE) is executed. In fact I can find no
words 
as to what should happen during that window. But in a strict sense there
is 
no reservation until the PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT (RESERVE) is executed 
(i.e., a registration is not a reservation) therefore I would say a
RESERVE 
command would be allowed and accepted up to the point of the PERSISTENT 
RESERVE OUT (RESERVE) being executed by the logical unit. 

Bye for now, 
George Penokie 

Dept 2C6  114-2 N212 
E-Mail:    gop at us.ibm.com 
Internal:  553-5208 
External: 507-253-5208   FAX: 507-253-2880 



Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com@t10.org on 10/16/2001 10:08:05 PM 

Sent by:  owner-t10 at t10.org 


To:   t10 at t10.org 
cc: 
Subject:  Re: PERSISTENT RESERVE/RESERVE Interoperability 



* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com 
* 

If a drive has a registration for persistent reservation, it is required
to 
respond to a RESERVE(6) or RESERVE(10) command with reservation conflict

status. This behavior is defined in the model section of SPC that
discusses 
the reservation behavior. 





"Kevin D Butt" <kdbutt at us.ibm.com>@t10.org on 10/16/2001 04:52:22 PM 

Sent by:  owner-t10 at t10.org 


To:   t10 at t10.org 
cc: 

Subject:  PERSISTENT RESERVE/RESERVE Interoperability 


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* "Kevin D Butt" <kdbutt at us.ibm.com> 
* 
Can anybody tell me what is the expected behavior when an initiatior
holds 
a persistent registration with a drive and some initiator tries a
RESERVE 
of that drive?  Does it give a reservation conflict because PERSISTENT 
RESERVE and RESERVE don't interplay at all, or since it's just a 
registration and not a reservation should it allow the RESERVE? 

Thanks, 

Kevin D. Butt 
IBM Tape Products 
SCSI and Fibre Channel Microcode Development 
65U/9032-2, 9000 S. Rita Rd. 
Tucson, AZ  85744 
Phone:  (520)799-5280, Tie-line 321-5280 
Fax:  (520)799-4062 
Email:  kdbutt at us.ibm.com 

* 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org 



* 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org 



* 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org 


------_=_NextPart_001_01C15710.FE327F20
Content-Type: text/html

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

 FW: PERSISTENT RESERVE/RESERVE Interoperability I would have thought that the following paragraph under section 5.5.1 (Reservations Overview) would apply. The two methods are prevented from creating conflicting and undefined interactions using RESERVATION 
CONFLICT status in the following manner. If a logical unit has executed a PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT 
command with the REGISTER or the REGISTER AND IGNORE EXISTING KEY service action and is still registered 
by any initiator, all RESERVE commands and all RELEASE commands regardless of initiator shall conflict 
and shall terminate with a RESERVATION CONFLICT status. If a logical unit has been reserved by any RESERVE 
command and is still reserved by any initiator, all PERSISTENT RESERVE IN and all PERSISTENT RESERVE 
OUT commands shall conflict regardless of initiator or service action and shall terminate with a RESERVATION 
CONFLICT status. David Ulrich 
LSI Logic Storage Systems 
Wichita KS -----Original Message----- 
From: George Penokie [mailto:gop at us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 8:10 AM 
To: Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com 
Cc: t10 at t10.org 
Subject: Re: PERSISTENT RESERVE/RESERVE Interoperability 
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* ;George Penokie; <gop at us.ibm.com> 
* Actually, it is not clear at all as to whether a reservation conflict is 
returned after a PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT (REGISTER) is executed and a before 
a PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT (RESERVE) is executed. In fact I can find no words 
as to what should happen during that window. But in a strict sense there is 
no reservation until the PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT (RESERVE) is executed 
(i.e., a registration is not a reservation) therefore I would say a RESERVE 
command would be allowed and accepted up to the point of the PERSISTENT 
RESERVE OUT (RESERVE) being executed by the logical unit. Bye for now, 
George Penokie Dept 2C6  114-2 N212 
E-Mail:    gop at us.ibm.com 
Internal:  553-5208 
External: 507-253-5208   FAX: 507-253-2880 

Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com@t10.org on 10/16/2001 10:08:05 PM Sent by:  owner-t10 at t10.org 
To:   t10 at t10.org 
cc: 
Subject:  Re: PERSISTENT RESERVE/RESERVE Interoperability 

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com 
* If a drive has a registration for persistent reservation, it is required to 
respond to a RESERVE(6) or RESERVE(10) command with reservation conflict 
status. This behavior is defined in the model section of SPC that discusses 
the reservation behavior. 



;Kevin D Butt; <kdbutt at us.ibm.com>@t10.org on 10/16/2001 04:52:22 PM Sent by:  owner-t10 at t10.org 
To:   t10 at t10.org 
cc: Subject:  PERSISTENT RESERVE/RESERVE Interoperability 
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* ;Kevin D Butt; <kdbutt at us.ibm.com> 
* 
Can anybody tell me what is the expected behavior when an initiatior holds 
a persistent registration with a drive and some initiator tries a RESERVE 
of that drive?  Does it give a reservation conflict because PERSISTENT 
RESERVE and RESERVE don't interplay at all, or since it's just a 
registration and not a reservation should it allow the RESERVE? Thanks, Kevin D. Butt 
IBM Tape Products 
SCSI and Fibre Channel Microcode Development 
65U/9032-2, 9000 S. Rita Rd. 
Tucson, AZ  85744 
Phone:  (520)799-5280, Tie-line 321-5280 
Fax:  (520)799-4062 
Email:  kdbutt at us.ibm.com * 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org 

* 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org 

* 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C15710.FE327F20--




More information about the T10 mailing list