RE: iSCSI: clearing SCSI objects

[Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>]

On Mon, 5 May 2003 wrstuden@wasabisystems.com wrote:

> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Eddy Quicksall wrote:
> 
> > David,
> >
> > I'm wondering what other targets are doing about this. Was it thought about
> > during the design phase?
> 
> Our (Wasabi's) target isn't going to do this, unless there is a strong
> indication that it's needed/required for certification. I see no real
> reason to do this as it's not conveying any value.

Well some will deploy all aspects of the RFC and everything option
considered manditory.

> So I'd think that the best thing to do here is push back on SAM for iSCSI,
> and ignore the need to assert the UA for I_T nexus loss in the cases where
> the initiator will notice it itself.
> 
> Note I'm hedging my words, since I think we still need a UA for nexus loss
> if it happens in a way the initiator won't notice.

Corner case rings a gong, but hey I dance to da different drum.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group