On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
: > In your scenario, WWN0 is P_WWN0 and should be recognized as having been
: > moved from N_WWN0 to N_WWN1, thereby creating a different path.
:
: No. NWWN is encoded in the controller. Most FC RAID boxes have dual
: controllers, thus two different NWWNs. In addition to that each
It was my understanding that what you are describing is not the intention
of the specification, but that the node WWN binding wasn't defined
tightly enough in the specification (in an attempt to avoid limiting
implementation possibilities) such that it doesn't clearly indicate that
the above would be illegal.
: controller can have multiple ports, each with the same NWWN but multiple
: PWWNs. I presupposed dual controllers each with one port, so PWWN and
: NWWN would be equivalent. I suppose I should have been a bit more clear
: on that point. Few people seem to grasp the subtlety of the brokenness of
: the specification in this area.
Is the spec broken or simply vague enough to allow ambiguous
implementations? Maybe those are the same thing...
Is the PVID defined unambiguously or does it rely on system-specific label
information?
-Kevin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 21:00:16 EST