On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Douglas Gilbert <dgilb...@interlog.com> wrote:
> On 2018-04-06 02:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:24:18AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> Ah. Far better.
>>> What about delegating FORMAT UNIT to the control LUN, and not
>>> implementing it for the individual disk LUNs?
>>> That would make an even stronger case for having a control LUN;
>>> with that there wouldn't be any problem with having to synchronize
>>> across LUNs etc.
>> It sounds to me like NVMe might be a much better model for this drive
>> than SCSI, btw :)
> So you found a document that outlines NVMe's architecture! Could you
> share the url (no marketing BS, please)?
> And a serious question ... How would you map NVMe's (in Linux)
> subsystem number, controller device minor number, CNTLID field
> (Identify ctl response) and namespace id onto the SCSI subsystem's
> h:c:t:l ?
> Doug Gilbert

Hannes- yes, a drive system altering operation like FORMAT UNIT is
asking for a dedicated management port, as the NVMe folks apparently
felt. But what is the least painful endpoint type for LUN0?

Tim Walker
Product Design Systems Engineering, Seagate Technology
(303) 775-3770

Reply via email to