Question on unmapping rules
david.black at emc.com
david.black at emc.com
Wed Oct 20 15:07:51 PDT 2010
Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1010201_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
The no longer accessible LBAs are no longer visible through the SCSI
interface (ok, that was obvious, bear with me ...). Because those LBAs are
not visible, their mapping (logical block provisioning) state
(mapped/anchored/deallocated, unmapped = anchored OR deallocated) is also not
visible. For example, attempting to query the mapping state of the no longer
accessible LBAs with the GET LBA STATUS command should result in CHECK
CONDITION, ILLEGAL REQUEST, LOGICAL BLOCK ADDRESS OUT OF RANGE, which is also
the expected response to attempting I/O to those LBAs.
As SCSI is an Interface standard and the no longer accessible LBAs are not
visible through the Interface, the implementation should be free to do what
it likes with resources that were used by those no longer accessible LBAs.
Unfortunately, in looking at the GET LBA STATUS command, I see an LBA range
check on the LBA in the CDB, but no clear instructions to the device server
that LBA status is only to be returned for accessible LBAs. That appears to
be an oversight - I think that it would be appropriate to add such
instructions if that would help to resolve this confusion.
If LBAs become inaccessible and their accessibility is subsequently restored,
I believe that the "initial condition of every LBA" requirement language
applies to the newly visible LBAs - those requirements are currently located
in 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124 in 10-233r6, and I would have no problem with a
proposal to add language elsewhere to clarify the applicability of those
requirements to this situation.
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry Houlder
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:23 PM
To: T10 Reflector
Subject: Question on unmapping rules
A question has been posed about how to handle the mapped/ unmapped state of
LBAs when the capacity of a drive is reduced (e.g., using MODE SELECT with a
block descriptor that reduces the maximum capacity). I can't find any words
in SPC-4 or SBC-3 that explicitly address this case.
If the no longer accessible LBAs (e.g., ones above the new max address but
below the old max address) were mapped, should the remain mapped or are they
permitted to be unmapped? I think the handling is obvious if those LBAs were
already unmapped (they can remain unmapped) but the previously mapped case is
not so obvious. Any opinions?
Should there be a proposal to add this handling to SBC-3?
More information about the T10