Maybe try to compare the inquiry response between COMSTAR and netapp/Microsoft 
target and see if there is any difference.

The same thing on the FC side works, though (assuming inquiry response in 
windows is handled by a protocol independent layer, there should be no 
difference between FC or iSCSI).

Sumit

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:storage-discuss-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Nigel Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:56 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [storage-discuss] iSCSI Boot Target
> 
> Following Vazer's initial post to the storage forum,
> there followed a number of email directly between Vazer
> and Peter Dunlap & myself, which I want to summarise here...
> 
> Vazer did a great job collecting Ethernet packet capture trace files,
> enabling a comparison of the behaviour of the Comstar iscsi target,
> with the Microsoft iscsi target and the NetApp iscsi target.
> 
> Vazer identified a couple of scenario where the Comstar target failed.
> 
> Vazer emailed the capture files to Peter Dunlap & myself,and it was
> interesting to analyse these files and see where they went wrong.
> 
> :--------:
> 
> First let's look at Vazer's "Not Working Scenario 2":
> "The Physical Server is booted with the iSCSI Offload NIC enabled in
> BIOS."
> 
> Vazer was trying to boot Windows 2003 server from the LUN,
> and it stalled saying "NTDETECT failed".
> 
> When I looked at the trace, I could see the iscsi boot started fine,
> with many 'Read(10)'s with transfer lengths of 1, 2, or 8 block.
> Then a point was reached where the initiator did a read with a
> requested transfer length of 20 blocks.
> At which point the Comstar target responded with scsi status code 0x28
> meaning 'Task Set Full'
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI_Status_Code
> 
> Vazer tried the iscsi boot afew times and the trace files always
> stopped in exactly the same place.
> 
> Peter Dunlap identified the problem as happening because
> the NIC was negotiating a very small value for MaxBurstLength (0x2000)
> The stall occurred when attempting a transfer of size 0x2800
> (20 block, each of 512 bytes = 10240'd = 0x2800).
> 
> This is the issue tracked by bug 6867945, for which a fix was recently
> putback.
> 
> :--------:
> 
> Now let's look at Vazer's "Not Working Scenario 1":
> "Server booted with Windows 2008 with HyperV, but the MS iSCSI Initiator
> connects to the target using the broadcom multifunction NIC with its
> offload iSCSI
> capabilities. There is no LUN recognized by the Initiator.
> With a NetApp iScsi target or Microsoft target this works fine."
> 
> In the trace file I could see the initiator sending 'Report LUNs'
> three times, with allocation length of 16.
> Each time it gets the same response from the comstar target,
> 'Status Good' and LUN List length 8, LUN 0.
> (Which is valid, but the initiator does not seem to like it.)
> 
> This is then followed by the initiator sending 'Inquiry LUN' three times,
> all with EVPD zero, page zero, and allocation length 36.
> Each time it gets the same response from the comstar target,
> That response is 'Status Good'.(Which again should be ok.)
> And at this stage it stalls.
> 
> The equivalent traces for the Microsoft and NetApp targets give
> the same response to 'Report LUNS', but then the initiator continues on Ok
> and the only difference I could spot was they set the status flag 'S'
> to say that status accompanies the Data-In pdu.
> 
> Peter Dunlap thought the cause of the problem may be the issues tracked by
> bug 6818484, which was fixed in snv_113.
> 
> However Vazer retried the scenario with snv_117, and still had the
> problem.
> AFAIK the issue is unresolved.
> 
> Best Regards
> Nigel Smith
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> storage-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
_______________________________________________
storage-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss

Reply via email to