Re: [systemd-devel] [dm-devel] RFC: one more time: SCSI device identification

2021-04-30 Thread Ewan D. Milne
On Wed, 2021-04-28 at 10:09 +1000, Erwin van Londen wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 16:41 -0400, Ewan D. Milne wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 20:33 +, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 16:14 -0400, Ewan D. Milne wrote: > > > > There's no way to do that, in principle. Because

Re: [systemd-devel] [dm-devel] RFC: one more time: SCSI device identification

2021-04-28 Thread Martin Wilck
On Wed, 2021-04-28 at 11:01 +1000, Erwin van Londen wrote: > > The way out of this is to chuck the array in the bin. As I mentioned > in one of my other emails when a scenario happens as you described > above and the array does not inform the initiator it goes against the > SAM-5 standard. > >

Re: [systemd-devel] [dm-devel] RFC: one more time: SCSI device identification

2021-04-27 Thread Martin Wilck
On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 13:48 +1000, Erwin van Londen wrote: > > > > Wrt 1), we can only hope that it's the case. But 2) and 3) need work, > > afaics. > > > In my view the WWID should never change.  In an ideal world, perhaps not. But in the dm-multipath realm, we know that WWID changes can

Re: [systemd-devel] [dm-devel] RFC: one more time: SCSI device identification

2021-04-27 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 4/27/21 10:10 AM, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 13:48 +1000, Erwin van Londen wrote: >>> >>> Wrt 1), we can only hope that it's the case. But 2) and 3) need work, >>> afaics. >>> >> In my view the WWID should never change.  > > In an ideal world, perhaps not. But in the