On 1/9/2015 1:26 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
I am not sure if we want this to be a deciding factor. I think the
session wide lock is something that can be removed in the main IO paths.
A lot of what it is used for now is cmd/task related handling like list
accesses. When we have the scsi layer all
On 1/8/2015 4:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 01/08/15 14:45, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Actually I started with that approach, but the independent connections
under a single session (I-T-Nexus) violates the command ordering
requirement. Plus, such a solution is specific to iSER...
Hello Sagi,
Whi
Hi,
I have two questions regarding open-iscsi.
1) I experience the same as exposed by the person in this post :
http://forum.proxmox.com/threads/6415-iscsid-it-starts-two-process
When I execute iscsid by hand or startup the service, two processes are
being spawned.
As a result when I stop the
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:16 -0800, Nicholas
On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
>
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottom
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 19:28 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
[...]
> > I think you are assuming we are leaving the iscsi code as it is today.
> >
> > For the non-MCS mq session per CPU design, we would be allocating and
> > binding the session and its resources to specific CPUs. They would only
> > b
On 01/09/2015 12:28 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Hi folks,
I spent some time browsing through this forum but I was unable to find an
explanation for this comment referring to the disabled bind_src_by_address()
function in io.c:
*This is not supported for now, because it is not exactly what we want.*
*It also turns out that targets will send p
