On 09/12/13 00:16, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user
space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name. However,
the SCSI mid-layer already uses that name today to
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:25 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/12/13 00:16, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user
space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name.
On 09/12/2013 06:30 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/12/13 18:16, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in
user
space, I would agree that we
On 09/13/13 10:06, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 06:30 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/12/13 18:16, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in
On 09/13/13 10:40, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/13/13 10:06, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 06:30 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/12/13 18:16, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If this name was not yet in
On 09/13/2013 11:24 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/13/13 10:40, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/13/13 10:06, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 06:30 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/12/13 18:16, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart
On 09/13/13 14:25, Jack Wang wrote:
I tried your srp-ha branch in github,
echo string
SRP2=id_ext=${THCA2_GUID},ioc_guid=${THCA2_GUID},dgid=${TGID_P2},pkey=${PKEY},service_id=${THCA2_GUID},can_queue=512
to add_target failed with
ib_srp: unknown parameter or missing value 'can_queue=512
[
On 09/13/2013 03:33 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/13/13 14:25, Jack Wang wrote:
I tried your srp-ha branch in github,
echo string
SRP2=id_ext=${THCA2_GUID},ioc_guid=${THCA2_GUID},dgid=${TGID_P2},pkey=${PKEY},service_id=${THCA2_GUID},can_queue=512
to add_target failed with
ib_srp:
On 09/13/13 15:51, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/13/2013 03:33 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/13/13 14:25, Jack Wang wrote:
I tried your srp-ha branch in github,
echo string
SRP2=id_ext=${THCA2_GUID},ioc_guid=${THCA2_GUID},dgid=${TGID_P2},pkey=${PKEY},service_id=${THCA2_GUID},can_queue=512
to
On 09/13/13 16:15, Jack Wang wrote:
Hello Bart,
cat /sys/class/scsi_host/host36/req_lim
64
I just checked srp spec, which do define such behaviour, I wonder in
SCST/SRPT, how the request limit is chosen, is it report from low level
hardware driver?
Hello Jack,
The following code probably
On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user
space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name. However,
the SCSI mid-layer already uses that name
On 09/12/13 18:16, Jack Wang wrote:
On 09/12/2013 12:16 AM, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user
space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name. However,
the SCSI
On 09/10/13 05:01, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 14:50 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
@@ -2227,6 +2270,7 @@ static const match_table_t srp_opt_tokens = {
{ SRP_OPT_SG_TABLESIZE, sg_tablesize=%u },
{ SRP_OPT_COMP_VECTOR, comp_vector=%u
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 14:50 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
@@ -2227,6 +2270,7 @@ static const match_table_t srp_opt_tokens = {
{ SRP_OPT_SG_TABLESIZE, sg_tablesize=%u },
{ SRP_OPT_COMP_VECTOR, comp_vector=%u},
{ SRP_OPT_TL_RETRY_COUNT,
On 8/20/2013 8:43 PM, David Dillow wrote:
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 17:55 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 08/20/13 17:34, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Question,
If srp now will allow larger queues while using a single global FMR pool
of size 1024, isn't it more likely now that in stress environment srp
Certain storage configurations, e.g. a sufficiently large array of
hard disks in a RAID configuration, need a queue depth above 64 to
achieve optimal performance. Hence make the queue depth configurable.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org
Cc: Roland Dreier rol...@purestorage.com
On 8/20/2013 3:50 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Certain storage configurations, e.g. a sufficiently large array of
hard disks in a RAID configuration, need a queue depth above 64 to
achieve optimal performance. Hence make the queue depth configurable.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche
On 08/20/13 17:34, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 8/20/2013 3:50 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Certain storage configurations, e.g. a sufficiently large array of
hard disks in a RAID configuration, need a queue depth above 64 to
achieve optimal performance. Hence make the queue depth configurable.
[ ...
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 17:55 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 08/20/13 17:34, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Question,
If srp now will allow larger queues while using a single global FMR pool
of size 1024, isn't it more likely now that in stress environment srp
will run out of FMRs to handle IO
19 matches
Mail list logo
