Re: Open/INQUIRY fails on RESERVE'd tape device

Hi all, 2014/1/24 Jeremy Linton : > On 1/23/2014 4:02 PM, Matthias Eble wrote: >> So: should open() fail on a reserved tape device? > > Yes, this is expected behavior for tape devices, reserve 6/release is > sometimes > used by backup applications in SAN environme

Open/INQUIRY fails on RESERVE'd tape device

Hi list, When a tape device is reserved with old reserve/release commands, we see inquiry only works on the scsi generic device. For scsi tape devices open() fails already: # lsscsi -g | grep st15 [2:0:6:0]tapeHP Ultrium 5-SCSI I5DZ /dev/st15 /dev/sg17 # sg_vpd -vvv /dev/st15

Re: Persistent reservation behaviour/compliance with redundant controllers

2014/1/7 James Bottomley > > On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 23:53 +0100, Matthias Eble wrote: > > 2014/1/6 Lee Duncan : > > > On 12/25/2013 03:00 PM, Matthias Eble wrote: > > >> Here's the dmmp map > > >> 360002aca6e6b dm-6 3PARdata,VV

Re: Persistent reservation behaviour/compliance with redundant controllers

2014/1/7 James Bottomley : > On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 23:53 +0100, Matthias Eble wrote: >> >> Can sdg and sdl be the same I_T_Nexus at a time? >> Right now, they are handled like that. >> In my understanding, every scsi disk device represents an I_T_Nexus. > > No,

Re: Persistent reservation behaviour/compliance with redundant controllers

2014/1/6 Lee Duncan : > On 12/25/2013 03:00 PM, Matthias Eble wrote: >> Here's the dmmp map >> 360002aca6e6b dm-6 3PARdata,VV >> size=2.0T features='0' hwhandler='0' wp=rw >> `-+- policy='round-robin 0' prio=1 st

Persistent reservation behaviour/compliance with redundant controllers

Hi all, I'm experiencing a behaviour that doesn't comply to the SPC3/4 standards from my point of view. I have read the t10 drafts to understand scsi3 persistent reservations (PR). Probably I simply got the standard wrong, but maybe somebody can bring light into the situation. My understanding of