Really getting rid of AEN
Paul von Behren
paul.von.behren at sun.com
Tue Jan 7 09:25:50 PST 2003
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Paul von Behren <paul.von.behren at sun.com>
*
But FC RAID implmentations often use LIP or RSCN for asynchronous event
notification (e.g. LUN masking config changes). This seems pretty
sub-optimal, FC should not be dealing with LUNs at all. And
an FC-specific approach can't be extended to other transports.
Seems like there's a need for some type of SCSI asynchronous event
notification, but perhaps not the one currently in SAM.
Paul
Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com wrote:
>
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com
> *
>
> Jim, you are beating a dead horse.
>
> The decison to remove AEN was based on having zero implementations of AEN
> being supported by both initiator and target in any system known to T10
> members over the last 15 years. Further, no T10 members thought they would
> implement AEN in the future. Even new protocols being brought into the SCSI
> fold (SAS, Infiniband, etc.) did not foresee any need for AEN and rebelled
> against providing an awkward (but implementable) method of doing AEN just
> to satisfy SAM when no one would actually implement it (because it was so
> awkward). T10 has removed other useless (at least in hindsight) features
> with far less evidence and passage of time than this.
>
>
> JimMcGrath at oa
> ktech.com To: roweber at acm.org
> Sent by: cc: owner-t10 at t10.org, T10 at t10.org
> owner-t10 at t10 Subject: Re: Really getting rid of AEN
> .org
> No Phone Info
> Available
>
> 01/06/2003
> 05:42 PM
>
>
>
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * JimMcGrath at oaktech.com
> *
>
> Ralph,
>
> What is suppose to replace AEN (aka AER) going forward? That is, how does
> a target (device server) notify the initiator (application client) of a
> change in status unrelated to a command, and especially without awaiting
> for a command?
>
> This capability is not physical protocol related, and I don't think is
> device type related, and so should be in SAM (if not, then what document
> will it be in?)
>
> Jim
>
> PS while I saw the notice of the decision (and vote) to remove AEN in the
> minutes, I did not see a proposal on the topic (which would usually address
> these sorts of issues).
>
> Ralph Weber
> <ralphoweber at comp To: "T10, Reflector"
> <T10 at t10.org>
> userve.com> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Really getting rid
> of AEN
> owner-t10 at t10.org
>
> 01/06/2003 06:23
> AM
> Please respond to
> roweber
>
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Ralph Weber <ralphoweber at compuserve.com>
> *
> In November, T10 remove AEN [aka AER] from SAM-3.
> Now, the time has come for the other shoe to drop.
>
> The really (shall we say) 'interesting' work for
> removing AEN is in SPC-3 and a proposal to do the
> deed is available as:
>
> ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.03/03-051r0.pdf
>
> There are little bits here and there that need to
> be removed or made obsolete, but there are two
> areas where substantial changes are proposed:
>
> - The Control mode page, and
> - The processor command set.
>
> Enjoy.
>
> .Ralph
>
> *
> * 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
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
More information about the T10
mailing list