Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group Reservations

Roger Cummings roger_cummings at
Wed Jan 2 10:06:41 PST 2008

Formatted message: <A HREF="r0801020_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</A>

A Happy New Year to everyone!
I'd headed off to the UK for Christmas before the last few messages in
the thread below were sent, and have only been back reading e-mail
today. Because of the time that's passed, I've not added to the existing
four levels of comments, but here's my 2c on the ideas contained below:
1) I like the idea of using an opaque shared secret (GRID) to define a
group rather than a list of Transport IDs - I think it's potentially
simpler and may have less corner cases. And I agree that we need a new
construct for this - overloading the Reservation Key would probably be
way to complex.
2) I don't see why a bit in the RESERVE is now necessary to identify the
reservation holder - it seems like this should be derived from the
reservation type as today.
3) I agree that we need to change Preempt case as little as necessary,
and that a preempt from outside of the group has to be supported.
4) I'm not sure if there really is a need for the "add initiator to an
existing group" function, but I'm not ready to absolutely prohibit it at
this time.
5) Fred asks if defining new (reserved only) reservation types could be
an approach to this requirement. Yes I think it could, BUT as the
proposer of the "last new" reservation type I can testify that any new
type will have a major impact on the existing functionality, way beyond
what might be expected. And, frankly, it just feels like the wrong
approach here - what's being asked for is a way of providing
incrementally tighter control of the existing types, not new ones. And
I'm not ready to give up on the two step register/reserve approach
either - there are good reasons why some architectures only allow
specific Initiators to kick off a Reserve whereas all Initiators can
Thus, based on what I've read below, my preferred approach would be:
1) Define a new type of REGISTER that contains one (or more) GRIDs;
2) Extend RESERVE to include a single GRID, and only Initiators that
have registered (or will register) with a matching GRID get access under
the reservation;
3) Don't change PREEMPT, superseding reservations etc. at all - keep the
rules for handling the reservation keys completely orthogonal to the
4) Don't allow GRIDs to be accessed via PR In.
Did I miss something? 
Roger Cummings
roger_cummings at
	From: owner-t10 at [mailto:owner-t10 at] On Behalf Of
Knight, Frederick
	Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:59 AM
	To: Kevin D Butt
	Cc: Christine R Knibloe; t10 at
	Subject: RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group
	Would moving access restrictions from being based on the
registration to
	being based on a specific reservation type help for this?
	Today, a bunch of initiators register - and that basically has
no impact on
	anyones access.  When 1 initiator does the reservation, then
that action
	impacts all previous registrations (allowing continued access),
and all other
	(non-registered) initiators (denying them access).  Anyone who
	after that immediately joins the existing reservation.	That is
what this
	group reservation is trying to deal with (getting free access
under the
	reservation just by doing a register - which is easy to do).
	Could we create reservations types for:
	  write exclusive - reserved only
	  exclusive access - reserved only
	This would create reservation types that require reservation
actions to allow
	access.  A simple registration all by itself would still have no
impact on access
	until an initiator also performed the reservation step.  Once
any initiator
	uses this new type reservation, then a registered node would
loose access
	(a reservation conflict status) until that initiator also
performed a reserve
	function (with type reserved only).  This also means there would
be multiple
	reservation holders (since every initiator does a reserve); so
no need to deal
	with the one reservation holder case (#5 below).
	Once this reservation type (reserved only) is in place, an
initiator that is already
	registered but not reserved, could not do I/O or change the
reservation type (reserves
	with other reservation types would fail).  Only a reserved
initiator could change
	the reservation type (with a new reserve).
	This would cover all cases below (1-6) except for #5.  As for #4
	the process could be a little more protected.  With all the
existing reservation
	types, the initiator just registers and preempts.  With these
new types, the
	initiator would have to register, reserve, and then preempt.
Would that meet
	the #4 requirement, or do you feel preempt can't have any
changes at all?
	My opinion is that a new reservation type could when it is used,
create new
	requirements.  On the other hand, if you want to have preempt
without reserve,
	then we could exempt that 1 function from the reserve
	The question would be a group ID.  Is one needed? or would the
simple change
	to require a matching reservation (of type reserved only) be
enough?  Using a
	simple shared value wouldn't work for this idea because of the
problem it
	would create for preempt (register, reserve with shared value,
then preempt);
	if you don't know the shared value, you can't preempt; so that
would make
	using a shared value impracticle; unless we exempt preempt from
	reserve requirement, and just allow register; preempt (without a
	then, this approach could work.
	More comments below on the existing proposal.
	    Fred Knight
	From: Kevin D Butt [mailto:kdbutt at] 
	Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 10:40 AM
	To: Raymond Gilson
	Cc: Christine R Knibloe; Knight, Frederick; Roger Cummings;
t10 at
	Subject: RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group
	Please see this font. 
	Kevin D. Butt
	SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
	MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
	Tel: 520-799-2869 / 520-799-5280
	Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
	Email address: kdbutt at 
"Raymond Gilson" <raymond_gilson at> 
12/22/2007 07:06 AM 
Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS 
Christine R Knibloe/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS, "Knight, Frederick"
<Frederick.Knight at>, "Roger Cummings"
<roger_cummings at>, <t10 at> 
RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group Reservations	
	Comments in line 
	From: Kevin D Butt [mailto:kdbutt at] 
	Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 5:33 PM
	To: Raymond Gilson
	Cc: Christine R Knibloe; Knight, Frederick; Roger Cummings;
t10 at
	Subject: RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group
	Thanks for joining in.	Let me summarize what I think has been
said by all parties who have joined in these discussions. 
	1) (From Ray) Some applications will have trouble providing a
list of Transport IDs. 
	2) (From Fred) There is a desire to allow members of a cluster
that were not active at the creation of the reservation to join in. 
	3) (From Kevin) Who can join or participate in a group
reservation is required to be controlled such that only those initiators
that are part of the cluster (i.e. group) can join. 
	4) PREEMPT must be allowed (i.e., what we do cannot lock out
PREEMPT or make it not work correctly) 
	5) Both Registrants Only and All Registrants types of
functionality need to be provided for. 
	6) There should be an option for all target ports 
	If we can't require a list of Transport ID's then it seems that
the suggested "shared secret" (not cryptographic, just some unique value
that is protected through obfuscation) is probably the best way to do
this.  This would be something akin to requiring the same reservation
key value.  However, using the reservation key does not seem to be
plausible because of how it is being used today.  What we need would be
some different value that would not be reportable via a Persistent
Reserve In.  This would keep third-party initiators from joining the
reservation.  If this new Group Reservation Identifier (GRID) were
added, that would take care of #1, #2, and #3 above. 
	For #5 above, it seems that we could provide that by adding a
bit in the reserve command that indicates "All Participants are
reservation holders".  If set to one, then it acts like an All
Registrants.  If set to zero then it acts like Registrants Only.  This
includes in the unregistering. 
	I'm not sure a bit is the right place for this.  Right now, it's
specified in the reservation type (registrants only, or all
registrants).  Creating a bit creates a place for conflicting
information to be supplied.  Are you suggesting this bit would apply to
only some reservation types, and be unused for other reservation types?
What would it mean if you did a registrants only reservation type, but
set the all registrants bit?
	Another method would be to use all the existing reservation
types (for #5 above), but add a GRID bit to specify that the reservation
applies to only those that supply a matching GRID (all others get
reservation conflict until they supply a matching GRID).  Then it could
in fact apply to all reservation types.   
	For #6 we use the ALL_TGT_PORTS bit the same as other
reservations today. 
	Issues still to be resolved: 
	a) Some systems won't want to require all initiators to send a
Persistent Reserve Out command.  Possible solution is to allow reserving
multiple initiators if a Transport ID list is sent.  Additional
initiators could join later if they have the GRID.  However this would
make it more complicated and if it is not needed I would rather not add
this option. 
	In a practical sense, I cannot see how this could be avoided
(all initiators sending PRO) -- since PR requires trust and good
behavior, each initiator must make no assumption about what the
protection level is currently set at -- so it must verify the settings
as the correct and expected.  If the settings aren't as expected, it
must bail out, or go into error recovery to attempt to avoid messing up
some other application (a fist fight on the SAN for device control does
nobody any good).  I see no reason to provide for this (I do know that
the current command allows a registration for multiple ports, but I
cannot imagine using it in the real world).  
	I'm not sure I understand the issue here.  How can a system that
doesn't want to send PR commands take advantage of the features offered
by that command?  Are you thinking of multi-path systems (where a single
host system has multiple initiators with access to the same target)?
How does this new proposal make this different than the situation today
(where they need to use the transport ID list and the spec_i_pt bit), or
send PR-OUT from every initiator?  I guess I''m mostly agreeing that
good behavior is already required.
	<<kdbutt: I am certainly willing to agree.  All could still be
registered by using the all_i_pt bit. However, I suspect there will be
those that will find this unacceptable.  Anybody who needs a way to add
all initiators who are currently registered to the group reservation,
please speak up (and comment on a method to accomplish this).>> 
	I would suggest we do not want a way to add all currently
registered initiators to the group.  This would tend to have the
potential to enlarge the group beyond what is intended.  I'd prefer a
method that requires explicit action.
	b) If the first I_T nexus sets the "All Participants are
reservation holders" to zero when it creates the reservation and then a
subsequent I_T nexus sets it to one, what is the behavior?  Change the
type?  Reject?	Also, what is reported in the Report Full Status if All
Participants are reservation holders is set to zero?   
	I don't think this is a problem -- once a reservation is
established it cannot be changed without a preempt, clear, or removal of
the old.  If this isn't either true, I would want the attempt to change
it to get rejected.  I would expect a change to require a preempt type
operation.  <<kdbutt: I think the correct response for a new participant
that attempts to change the type is to reject a command that attempts to
change the type. 
	I don't think you can require a preempt/clear in order to change
the type.  The whole point of PR is that a reservation is present at all
times; you can change the type, you can move the owner of the
reservation (such as preempt on a registrants only type), but you never
want to loose the protection provided by the PR (see note 10 in SPC4 -
section 5.6 - clearing).
	For what to return in Report Full Status if  "All Participants
are reservation holders" is set to zero, I am concerned about confusion.
In reality, only the first is a reservation holder and therefore only
the first should set the reservation_holder bit to one.  However, there
would now be two groups that cannot be distinguished.  There first is
not the reservation_holder but part of the reservation and the second is
not the reservation_holder and not part of the reservation.  I think we
should probably add a "group reservation participant" bit to distinguish
the two.>> .   
	c) If we go to this method of using the GRID to determine who
can join, then the Reservation Key may or may not be different. 
	c-1) if the Reservation Key is different, then a PREEMPT of a
Reservation Key will do what? 
	c-2) if the Reservation Key is the same, then a PREEMPT will act
the same as an AR or RO reservation today. 
	c-3) Do we require the Reservation Key to be the same?	 
	Preempt is of a reservation, not a key.  The key's currently are
not compared, and have no valid use (by the device) except that each
initiator has registered one, and only one at a time.  We don't want to
change this behavior -- a key is random number assigned for some
external purpose that the device records and reports.  (My application
requires this to operate properly) 
	<<kdbutt: Look at clause of SPC-4r11.	This looks to me
like the Reservation Key is used to decide between unregistering I_T
nexuses with the sent reservation key or if the reservation key is that
of the reservation holder, then removing the reservation and
registrations of all that have that reservation key.  My intent is not
to change the current behavior.>> 
	Agreed Kevin.  A Preempt should impact the
registration/reservation of all those initiators with a key that matches
the one that is being preempted - the same as current behavior.
	d) Does this approach still have the issues that Roger was
concerned about (e.g., the corner cases)? 
	I hope the use of a GRID would not introduce any new issues to
SPR -- it only prevents a registrant from becoming a reservation
participant without some external knowledge.  It doesn't prevent a
registrant from preempt, clear, or any other error recovery operations
(and MUST not). 
	I think this is one of the questions.  Error recovery is often
one of the cases where you end up with fist-fights out in the SAN over
who owns the device.  Hosts do exactly what you suggested above (host 1
checks with PR-IN, doesn't like what it sees, and preempts and "fixes"
it; then, host 2 does exactly the same - and the fight is on).	It's
perfectly valid to want to leave this working as is.  I understand that
desire.  I just would like to discuss the possibility of improving the
situation.  If we can't or have other requirements not to change it,
that's fine. 
	Kevin D. Butt
	SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
	MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
	Tel: 520-799-2869 / 520-799-5280
	Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
	Email address: kdbutt at 
"Raymond Gilson" <raymond_gilson at> 
12/21/2007 12:45 PM 
"Roger Cummings" <roger_cummings at>, "Knight, Frederick"
<Frederick.Knight at>, Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS 
<t10 at>, Christine R Knibloe/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS 
RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group Reservations	
	Several years ago I was trying to figure out a way to introduce
a "JOIN" function to the SPR.  The initiator would register, but that
would not grant it access to a reservation of the "joined only" type.
To join it, the initiator would have to send a join SPR command -- we
could add a "shared secret" field to the join, so that only those
initiators that knew the secret could join. 
	I think we will have a great deal of trouble with a "white list"
approach -- as an application, I have no idea what my port ID is (or
anything else for that matter). 
	Would something like this make sense? 
	Ray Gilson 
	From: owner-t10 at [mailto:owner-t10 at] On Behalf Of
Roger Cummings
	Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:24 AM
	To: Knight, Frederick; Kevin D Butt
	Cc: t10 at; Christine R Knibloe
	Subject: RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group
	The way you clean up from a disaster is to Preempt, that's what
it's there for. Most of the applications that I know that will actually
issue a Preempt make it a very special function that doesn't happen in
the normal flow, and one app at least DOES require manual intervention
of an operator before kicking off the preempt. 
	Yes, today, a Preempt has to be issued through a registered I_T
nexus, but a registration with the SPEC_I_T bit doesn't have to come
|from an already registered initiator - see Table 33 in SPC-4, and I
don't believe Kevin changed that in his proposal. 
	For the future, however we define a "group" for the purposes of
new reservation types, we will have to make sure that an Initiator
outside of the "group" can issue a Preempt to handle the disaster
recovery case. 
	From: Knight, Frederick [mailto:Frederick.Knight at] 
	Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:56 AM
	To: Roger Cummings; Kevin D Butt
	Cc: t10 at; Christine R Knibloe
	Subject: RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group
	My question has had to do with differentiating the disaster
clean up 
	case from the non-cooperating host case. 
	How do I clean up from a disaster?  If all my "reserved"
	melt down, and there aren't any of them left anymore (because of
	a site disaster, or whatever), how does some other node come
	and clean up so it can gain access? 
	Would it require manual intervention?  Or, is there a way in the
	that I can register and preempt the group reservation (does the
	of the SPEC_I_PT bit allow this as you have suggested Roger).  I
	thought the SPEC_I_PT had to come from an already registered 
	initiator (which in a disaster, none exist anymore). 
	   Fred Knight 
	From: Roger Cummings [mailto:roger_cummings at] 
	Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:03 AM
	To: Kevin D Butt; Knight, Frederick
	Cc: t10 at; Christine R Knibloe
	Subject: RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group
	I'm sorry, I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make out.
This gets into some of the corner cases that I listed in my first
	The point to be made in response to Fred's case is that a
third-party can create registrations for a downed initiator (via the
SPEC_I_PT) bit, so that when it comes up again it will be able to
participate in the reservation without having to register itself. 
	Also, you say that "We have made provisions for adding members
once the reservation exists, but only one of the reservation holders can
add another entity." Two things in response to that: 
	1) I didn't see any specific provision for adding members in
your proposal, so I presume you'd just issue another RESERVE with the
same type and the whole list of transport IDs to be included again, and
thus the Target would have a whole lot of work to do again to set up
another reservation. 
	2) I that really what you want, that an member of the existing
group can reissue the RESERVE with a whole bunch of different
TransportIDs, perhaps excluding some that were previously there? 
	From: owner-t10 at [mailto:owner-t10 at] On Behalf Of
Kevin D Butt
	Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:54 PM
	To: Knight, Frederick
	Cc: t10 at; Christine R Knibloe
	Subject: RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group
	This is being proposed for SPC. 
	There are multiple types of reservations.  In an environment
where one node of a cluster must join later, one of the other types can
be used.  Either that or have an existing node in your cluster add the
new node.  The whole intent of this Group reservation is to lock out
everybody that is not explicitly specified during the reserve.	We have
made provisions for adding members once the reservation exists, but only
one of the reservation holders can add another entity.	The new entity
cannot add itself.  This is the whole point of reservations (i.e., lock
out others from doing stuff while I think I have exclusive rights). 
	To put it in other word's, to allow somebody to join the
reservation of their own accord without permission is EXACTLY what I am
trying to protect against. 
	Kevin D. Butt
	SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
	MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
	Tel: 520-799-2869 / 520-799-5280
	Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
	Email address: kdbutt at 
"Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight at> 
12/17/2007 01:38 PM 
Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS 
RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group Reservations	
	Sorry, you can't require everyone to register before the
	That's like saying my whole cluster can't boot because 1 node is
down.  You need 
	to have a way for a "down" initiator to join the fun after the
	I helped write a host cluster product that used a shared tape
(failover model).  The 
	backup application would write to the tape.  If a system failure
ever happened, the 
	backup application would failover to a different host.	It would
skip backwards on 
	the tape for a few records, recognize where it left off, and
then resume operation. 
	BUT, for some protection, we used reservations to make sure only
1 initiator at a 
	time could access the tape.  The interesting point however, is
that we were in the 
	process of upgrading from old SCSI-2 RESERVE to using PR.
Because, we also 
	have multiple HBAs in the host, and we wanted to be able to use
more than 1 of 
	those HBAs (so we needed multiple reservations - aka PR).
Having this idea 
	(group reservations) would have been a real nice addition. 
	As for the RA/AR differences.  It seemed to be timing.
Registrants Only was fairly 
	early on (as I remember), and so implemented by several O/S
vendors.  Later on, 
	some issues were found (which got complicated spec-ees added to
address), but also, 
	the All Registrants was added (which didn't have those issues).
But, since there were 
	implementations, it couldn't be removed like the other old PR
types that no one ever 
	used.  Anyway, I agree, they offer basically the same
capabilities, but RO is already 
	out there, and AR is probably what new implementers are using
(it's easier to understand 
	and implement from the host side).  Most of the differences are
already documented, 
	so there wouldn't be that much extra for you to write to have
both types (which I think 
	would be better than bit somewhere - do it the same way all the
others are done).  But, 
	you could also just do the AR version, and let someone else add
the RO version if they 
	want it. 
	Are you proposing this for tape only? or SPC in general?  I
assume SPC in general. 
	  Fred Knight 
	From: Kevin D Butt [mailto:kdbutt at] 
	Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:51 AM
	To: Roger Cummings
	Cc: t10 at
	Subject: RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group
	Thank you for your feedback.  I am certainly willing to
entertain  other methods for accomplishing the end goal in an easier
fashion.  I am not sure I understand how your proposed method makes it
more backward compatible.  In my proposal PRin would show a different
type of reservation and hence the application clients would not try to
join the reservation because they don't know about the type.  In your
proposal, application clients would not be allowed to register.  This is
a deviation from what they can always do today - unless there is a
resource issue.  This seems more disruptive to me.  I would assume that
there would be a new additional sense code added for UNABLE TO REGISTER
BECAUSE A GROUP RESERVATION IS IN PLACE (or analogous).  This would be a
new thing for failure to register and there would be pain at the
register point.  Perhaps that is better than at the reserve point - but
I would think that it would be better handled as a reservation conflict
since that is what it is instead of something the application client
does not understand. 
	As for "all registrants" type vs. "registrants only" I didn't
see where the difference would be interesting, but I am not opposed to
providing a way to switch between which of these two types is done.
Whether it is additional types or some bit during registration etc. 
	As for some of the corner cases mentioned below, if each I_T
nexus that is supposed to be part of the group reservation is required
to be registered before the reservation is made, and if the reservation
is released when the last group reservation participant is unregistered,
then I think we don't have an issue. 
	I would prefer that we work together to shape a mutually
beneficial proposal as opposed to have "competing" proposals.  I am
willing to modify my proposal where it can be made easier and such.  I
am not sold that my proposed method is the only way or even the best -
it's just the way I thought of doing it.  I admit that I have always
been very confused about the usefulness of RA and AR types.  They make
absolutely no sense in the tape world. 
	Kevin D. Butt
	SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
	MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
	Tel: 520-799-2869 / 520-799-5280
	Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
	Email address: kdbutt at 
"Roger Cummings" <roger_cummings at> 
Sent by: owner-t10 at 
12/14/2007 12:10 PM 
Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS 
<t10 at> 
RE: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group Reservations	
	First of all, let me say that I completely support what you're
trying to do here. I think that providing a method in persistent
reservations (PRs) to support shared access between ONLY a
specifically-designated set of systems is a worthy goal, and something
we should do in SPC-4. 
	Adding a set of Transport IDs to Reserve as per your document
08-024 & 08-025 is certainly possible, but it's a massive change to the
way that PRs work today, and it throws up a bunch of nasty corner cases
and backwards compatibility issues. 
	The massive change comes from the fact that now the Target will
have to remember which registrations are in the Reservation, and which
are not. It will probably have to preserve all of the transport
information for the life of the reservation. 
	The corner cases are things like, what happens if there's no
longer a registration that corresponds to the transport ID in the
Reserve? Does the Reserve succeed? What happens if a registration comes
in later, after the reservation has been established - does that device
it get access? 
	Backwards compatibility issues may arise like this: An existing
device registers, and finds it has no access, so it does a PR In and
finds out that a reservation is in place, retries its access and still
it has no access. What does it do next, preempt the reservation because
it assumes the Target is broken? 
	Reserve also has to be an "atomic" command, and I've always
thought that was why it's functionality is as compact as it is today.
Most of the complex operations related to addresses and keys are done at
registration time, and those operations don't have to be atomic. 
	One more thing: you chose for your new "group" reservations to
follow the "all registrants" approach is terms of the definition of the
reservation holder. While that's fine by me (obviously), I suspect there
are also situations where group reservations that follow the
"registrants only" approach might be useful. 
	The bottom line from my point of view is this: Your proposal is
feasible and we can probably make it work. But I wonder if there's an
easier way to achieve the same goal that is more compatible with
existing practice and requires less of a change in functionality on the
Target side. 
	What if we didn't add any new reservations types, but instead
added some new functionality to the registration process? What I'm
thinking of a new Register feature that causes the Target to kill all
existing registrations, create the registrations identified in the
transport IDs in the Register command, and not accept any future
registrations. That way, we don't need any changes to Reserve, and an
Initiator with existing functionality would just not be able to register
and therefore would not be confused. 
	Does that make sense to you? Is there a chance this is an easier
approach? If so, I'll write up a detailed proposal that's the equivalent
of 08-025r0 and we can compare and contrast at the next CAP. 
	Again, thanks for getting this started, I think it's a
worthwhile endeavor and I'll be glad to put some cycles towards defining
this sort of functionality for SPC-4. 
	From: owner-t10 at [mailto:owner-t10 at] On Behalf Of
Kevin D Butt
	Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:18 PM
	To: t10 at
	Subject: Persistent Reservation Proposal - Group Reservations
	I have posted two documents related to an additional Persistent
Reservation Type.  The first document is a presentation on where
persistent reservations are today and where they fall short in the
scenarios covered by the proposal.  It also covers the intent of the
proposal and what will be proposed.  The second is the actual proposal 
	Your PDF file will be posted at:
	Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes. 
	Kevin D. Butt
	SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware, IBM
	MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
	Tel: 520-799-2869 / 520-799-5280
	Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
	Email address: kdbutt at 

More information about the T10 mailing list