Hi Som,

The NV code of scsi_vhci is very different with S10 version.
you are running S10. So please trace symmetric_device_probe() of 
scsi_vhci module on S10.

Javen

Somnath kotur wrote:

>Javen,
>        I think my target is returning a valid GUID
>(Will investigate more on this and confirm )
>Oh and BTW i am using Solaris 10x86 off the CD - 08/07
>,does that make a difference?
>
>
>--- Javen Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi Som,
>>
>>There are two conditions to enable mpxio.
>>
>>1. your target return a valid GUID.
>>2. your iscsi target can match at least one of below
>>failover types:
>>    "misc/scsi_vhci/scsi_vhci_f_asym_sun",
>>    "misc/scsi_vhci/scsi_vhci_f_asym_lsi",
>>    "misc/scsi_vhci/scsi_vhci_f_asym_emc",
>>    "misc/scsi_vhci/scsi_vhci_f_sym_emc",
>>    "misc/scsi_vhci/scsi_vhci_f_sym_hds",
>>    "misc/scsi_vhci/scsi_vhci_f_sym",
>>    "misc/scsi_vhci/scsi_vhci_f_tpgs";
>>Oh, I assume you uses SXDE solaris rather than S10.
>>I paste the comments in scsi_vhci.conf, I think the
>>comments described 
>>very clear:
>>
>>#
>># For a device that has a GUID, discovered on a pHCI
>>with mpxio enabled, 
>>vHCI
>># access also depends on one of the scsi_vhci
>>failover modules accepting the
>># device.  The default way this occurs is by a
>>failover module's "probe"
>># implementation (sfo_device_probe) indicating the
>>device is supported under
>># scsi_vhci.  To override this default
>>probe-oriented configuration in
>># order to
>>#
>>#    1) establish support for a device not currently
>>accepted under 
>>scsi_vhci
>>#
>># or 2) override the module selected by "probe"
>>#
>># or 3) disable scsi_vhci support for a device
>>#
>># you can add a 'scsi-vhci-failover-override' tuple,
>>as documented in
>># scsi_get_device_type_string(9F). For each tuple,
>>the first part provides
>># basic device identity information (vid/pid) and
>>the second part selects
>># the failover module by "failover-module-name". If
>>you want to disable
>># scsi_vhci support for a device, use the special
>>failover-module-name 
>>"NONE".
>># Currently, for each failover-module-name in
>>'scsi-vhci-failover-override'
>># (except "NONE") there needs to be a
>># "misc/scsi_vhci/scsi_vhci_<failover-module-name>"
>>in 'ddi-forceload' 
>>above.
>>#
>>#       "                  111111"
>>#       "012345670123456789012345",    
>>"failover-module-name" or "NONE"
>>#       "|-VID--||-----PID------|",
>># scsi-vhci-failover-override =
>>#       "STK     FLEXLINE 400",        
>>"f_asym_lsi",
>>#       "SUN     T4",                   "f_tpgs",
>>#       "CME     XIRTEMMYS",            "NONE";
>>#
>>#END: FAILOVER_MODULE_BLOCK (DO NOT MOVE OR DELETE)
>>
>>If your mdi_pi_online() fails still, I think you
>>should trace the 
>>*sfo_device_probe() for
>>scsi_vhci_f_sym module.
>>
>>I am not sure what kind of iscsi target you used? do
>>you used software 
>>iscsi target?
>>If it is, I think it's symmetric. So please trace 
>>symmetric_device_probe() of module
>>scsi_vhci_f_sym, see why you device_probe failed.
>>
>>Cheers
>>Javen
>>
>>
>>Somnath kotur wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Javen,
>>>        Assuming that this is an iscsi target that
>>>      
>>>
>>i
>>    
>>
>>>have written/rather have full control over it, how
>>>      
>>>
>>can
>>    
>>
>>>i make sure that my iscsi initiator driver or even
>>>      
>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>'iscsiadm' (Solaris's own iscsi initiator) is able
>>>      
>>>
>>to
>>    
>>
>>>use MPxIO on it? 
>>>
>>>I have configured the target to have the same name
>>>with 2 portals, each with different target portal
>>>group tags both presenting the same LUN to the OS
>>>thereby providing path redundancy 
>>>
>>>I was able to use sendtargets discovery from the
>>>'iscsiadm',get 2 sessions from  both the portals
>>>      
>>>
>>.But
>>    
>>
>>>found that instead of creating vHCI based pathinfo
>>>nodes ,regular  ndi_dev info nodes were created for
>>>BOTH the LUNS ( If MPxIO worked of course, the
>>>      
>>>
>>paths
>>    
>>
>>>would be merged and there would be only one entry
>>>right?)
>>>
>>>I tried adding the 'VID PID' entry in the
>>>scsi_vhci.conf  with BOTH symmetric/non-symmetric
>>>options but it did not WORK ( MDI_NOT_SUPPORTED
>>>      
>>>
>>error
>>    
>>
>>>returned in mdi_pi_online()) 
>>>
>>>what needs to be done from the target pt of view to
>>>indicate MPxIO support?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Som
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--- Javen Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Hi Som,
>>>>
>>>>If your iscsi target doesn't support ALUA, you
>>>>        
>>>>
>>need
>>    
>>
>>>>check whether your 
>>>>iscsi target can match any one of failover
>>>>        
>>>>
>>operation
>>    
>>
>>>>types solaris 
>>>>supports. Solaris supports asymmetric/symmetric
>>>>        
>>>>
>>EMC
>>    
>>
>>>>failover operation, 
>>>>LSI asymmetric failover operation, sun standard
>>>>symmetric failover and 
>>>>sun standard asymmetric failover operation, 5
>>>>        
>>>>
>>types
>>    
>>
>>>>failover operation. 
>>>>Except sun standard symmetric failover types
>>>>        
>>>>
>>(ALUA),
>>    
>>
>>>>other types match 
>>>>fops by vendor ID and product ID.
>>>>If your iscsi target cannot match to any type of
>>>>failover operation set, 
>>>>the mdi_pi_online() always fail.
>>>>So I think you need make sure the type of your
>>>>        
>>>>
>>iscsi
>>    
>>
>>>>target, then let we 
>>>>see whether you need add your vendorID and product
>>>>ID to any specific 
>>>>fops for matching. If you debug more deeper, you
>>>>would find the 
>>>>mdi_pi_online fails at *sfo_device_probe() routine
>>>>of struct 
>>>>scsi_failover_ops.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>>Javen
>>>>
>>>>Somnath kotur wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Javen,
>>>>>           Would you be able to help with some
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>MPxIO
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>support problems i am facing currently with my
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>iSCSI
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>HBA Driver or guide me to someone /a forum who
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>could?
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I find that there has already been an entry with
>>>>>similiar questions on the driver-discuss
>>>>>/storage-discuss forum by one 'ram vegesna' and
>>>>>     
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>
>      
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total 
>Access, No Cost.  
>http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>  
>

_______________________________________________
driver-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss

Reply via email to