On 04/06/2013 11:08 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 10:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
SAM advertises the use of a Well-known LUN (W_LUN) for scanning.
As this avoids exposing LUN 0 (which might be a valid LUN) for
all initiators it is the preferred method for LUN scanning on
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 15:31 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 04/06/2013 11:08 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 10:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
SAM advertises the use of a Well-known LUN (W_LUN) for scanning.
As this avoids exposing LUN 0 (which might be a valid LUN) for
On 13-04-07 10:49 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 15:31 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 04/06/2013 11:08 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 10:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
SAM advertises the use of a Well-known LUN (W_LUN) for scanning.
As this avoids
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 11:59 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
On 13-04-07 10:49 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 15:31 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 04/06/2013 11:08 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 10:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
SAM advertises the use
On 13-04-07 12:15 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 11:59 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
On 13-04-07 10:49 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 15:31 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 04/06/2013 11:08 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 10:46 +0100,
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 12:34 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
On 13-04-07 12:15 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
No specs apply that I can see.
SPC-3 Section 8.3 Access Controls
spc4r36f.pdf section 8.3.1.2 [Overview]
Access controls are handled in the SCSI target device by
an access controls
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 10:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
SAM advertises the use of a Well-known LUN (W_LUN) for scanning.
As this avoids exposing LUN 0 (which might be a valid LUN) for
all initiators it is the preferred method for LUN scanning on
some arrays.
So we should be using W_LUN for
On 03/15/2013 04:54 PM, Steffen Maier wrote:
While we're at it: I recently figured that there are targets
responding to inquiry with PQ=1 PDT=31 for LUN0 if LUN0 has no
backing device (e.g. no disk mapped for the initiator host). While
this is likely to work with in-kernel lun scanning, the
just a small addendum regarding the naming of the w_lun variable
On 03/15/2013 04:54 PM, Steffen Maier wrote:
While we're at it: I recently figured that there are targets responding
to inquiry with PQ=1 PDT=31 for LUN0 if LUN0 has no backing device
(e.g. no disk mapped for the initiator host).
SAM advertises the use of a Well-known LUN (W_LUN) for scanning.
As this avoids exposing LUN 0 (which might be a valid LUN) for
all initiators it is the preferred method for LUN scanning on
some arrays.
So we should be using W_LUN for scanning, too. If the W_LUN is
not supported we'll fall back to
While we're at it: I recently figured that there are targets responding
to inquiry with PQ=1 PDT=31 for LUN0 if LUN0 has no backing device
(e.g. no disk mapped for the initiator host). While this is likely to
work with in-kernel lun scanning, the kernel does not even allocate an
sg dev in
On 13-03-15 05:46 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
SAM advertises the use of a Well-known LUN (W_LUN) for scanning.
As this avoids exposing LUN 0 (which might be a valid LUN) for
all initiators it is the preferred method for LUN scanning on
some arrays.
So we should be using W_LUN for scanning, too.
12 matches
Mail list logo
