RE: iScsi:

["Sukanta Ganguly" <sganguly@opulentsystems.com>]

Without iSCSI, in a normal circumstance where you have one target device and multiple HBA's acting as initiator, Who handles the synchronization? How is iSCSI bring up this issue. Isn't is already handled ?

SG

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 1/3/2002 at 10:36 AM Nitin Dhingra wrote:

>Well, let's take a case 
>where you have one target and many initiators connected that target
>
>And as iScsi is at block level, so if more than one initiator have
>requested
>to write at the same block address at the same time at the same target 
>this can create synchronization problems, don't you think?
>
>Shouldn't you give an option like most other protocols like NFS does,
>where you have a separate optional layer for locking/synchronization...
>
>Don't you think this should be handled by iScsi??
>
>- Nitin
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: 	Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com] 
>Sent:	Wednesday, January 02, 2002 3:10 PM
>To:	nitin.dhingra@dcmtech.co.in; ips@ece.cmu.edu
>Subject:	RE: iScsi:
>
>I don't understand this - what exactly is broken that you think
>needs to be fixed?  Many SCSI targets do implement access controls
>at the logical unit level, which is in T10's domain, not iSCSI's.
>
>--David
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>David L. Black, Senior Technologist
>EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
>+1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
>black_david@emc.com         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nitin Dhingra [mailto:nitin.dhingra@dcmtech.co.in]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:40 AM
>> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
>> Subject: iScsi:
>> 
>> 
>> Why don't you put a restriction on the read/write access to a target?
>> This can solve some of the synchronization problems that can occur...
>> 
>> And Yeah Happy New Year to All...
>> 
>> - Nitin 
>>