A persistent reservation question

MEHROTRA, VIVEK (STSD) vivek.mehrotra at hp.com
Mon Jun 28 14:03:46 PDT 2004


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "MEHROTRA, VIVEK (STSD)" <vivek.mehrotra at hp.com>
*
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C45D53.4B04DD3D
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Rob,
=20
After I look in the SPC-3 section 5.6.2, it still does not answer my
question. Actually I wanted to know, if a host has registered
persistently by sending SPC-3 PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT command with
REGISTER or REGISTER AND IGNORE EXISTING KEY service action, and then
the device device receives SPC-2 RESERVE command (with the same key)
|from this host, what should the device do in this case ?
=20
SPC-3r19 section 5.6.2 says "A RESERVE(6) or RESERVE(10) command shall
complete with GOOD status, but no reservation shall be established and
the persistent reservation shall not be changed ...". I am not clear
about what does the part "... and the persistent reservation shall not
be changed" means. Does this mean that we get a RESERVE (SPC-2) command
after the host is PERSISTENTLY RESERVED (using SPC-3 style =
reservation).
If this is true, then my question is different.
=20
Please advice, on what I am thinking is correct or incorrect.
=20
Thanks in advance
=20
Vivek Mehrotra

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of =
Elliott,
Robert (Server Storage)
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:04 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: A persistent reservation question


SPC-2, which defined both commands, requires that RESERVATION CONFLICT
status be returned.
=20
SPC-3, which considers RESERVE/RELEASE obsolete, allows them to be
treated as NOOPs in certain cases (see section 5.6.2 of revision 19, =
all
the revisions of 03-232, 02-483, and 02-231).
=20
--=20
Rob Elliott, elliott at hp.com=20
Hewlett-Packard Industry Standard Server Storage Advanced Technology=20
https://ecardfile.com/id/RobElliott
<https://ecardfile.com/id/RobElliott> =20


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of
MEHROTRA, VIVEK (STSD)
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:23 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: A persistent reservation question



Hi Folks,=20

What is the best approach to handle the scenario, when a device is
registered for persistent reservation using SCSI 3 style PERSISTENT
RESERVE OUT command (expecting a same style command with RESERVE =
service
action), but receives a old style RESERVE command from the initiator.

I didn't see SCSI specs talking about this anywhere !=20

Thanks in Advance=20

Vivek Mehrotra=20


------_=_NextPart_001_01C45D53.4B04DD3D
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

 Message Hi Rob,
  
 After=20 I look in the SPC-3 section 5.6.2, it still does not answer my = question.=20 Actually I wanted to know, if a host has registered persistently by = sending=20 SPC-3 PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT command with REGISTER or REGISTER AND = IGNORE=20 EXISTING KEY service action, and then the device device receives = SPC-2=20 RESERVE command (with the same key) from this host, what should the = device do in=20 this case ?
  
 SPC-3r19 section 5.6.2 says "A = RESERVE(6) or=20 RESERVE(10) command shall complete with GOOD status, but no reservation = shall be=20 established and the persistent reservation shall not be changed ...". I = am not=20 clear about what does the part "... and the persistent reservation = shall not be=20 changed" means. Does this mean that we get a RESERVE (SPC-2) command = after the=20 host is PERSISTENTLY RESERVED (using SPC-3 style reservation). If = this is=20 true, then my question is different.
  
 Please advice, on what I am thinking is correct or=20 incorrect.
  
 Thanks in advance
  
 Vivek Mehrotra

 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of = Elliott,=20 Robert (Server Storage)
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:04=20 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: A persistent = reservation=20 question


 SPC-2, which defined both commands, = requires that=20 RESERVATION CONFLICT status be returned.
  
 SPC-3, which considers RESERVE/RELEASE = obsolete,=20 allows them to be treated as NOOPs in certain cases (see section = 5.6.2 of=20 revision 19, all the revisions of 03-232, 02-483, and=20 02-231).
  
 -- = 
Rob Elliott, = elliott at hp.com=20 
Hewlett-Packard = Industry Standard=20 Server Storage Advanced Technology 
https://ecardfile.com/id/Ro= bElliott=20 


-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of = MEHROTRA,=20 VIVEK (STSD)
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:23 = PM
To:=20 t10 at t10.org
Subject: A persistent reservation=20 question


 Hi Folks, What is the best approach to handle = the scenario,=20 when a device is registered for persistent reservation using SCSI 3 = style=20 PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT command (expecting a same style command with = RESERVE=20 service action), but receives a old style RESERVE command from the=20 initiator. I didn't see SCSI specs talking = about this=20 anywhere ! Thanks in Advance Vivek Mehrotra=20 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C45D53.4B04DD3D--




More information about the T10 mailing list