P1394 Mail Archive: Re: P1394> Dynamic LUNs

Re: P1394> Dynamic LUNs

Greg Shue (gregs@sdd.hp.com)
Tue, 26 May 1998 10:38:27 -0700 (PDT)

Microsoft has indicated that Win98/NT5.0 are not going to provide
"target" functionality. So those comments refer to how a Win98/NT5.0
"initiator" driver expects to interact with Units on other nodes.

You are correct that interactions between other nodes are independent
of Win98/NT5.0.

>
>
> This LUN 0 allocation would only affect us if a Win98/NT5.0 host was the
> "target" in a particular config...I didn't think the Microsoft driver
> would interfere with us trying to access any arbitrary LUN on "another"
> node...(?)
>
> Randy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Shue [SMTP:gregs@sdd.hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 9:37 AM
> To: rturner@sharplabs.com
> Cc: p1394@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: P1394> Dynamic LUNs
>
>
> SBP-2 says that LUN zero must exist.
>
> When PWG representatives went to Redmond, Microsoft said that
> their driver only supports LUN zero. They also said that LUN
> zero needs to be directly mapped to a higher layer, because they
> won't support dynamic LUNs.
>
> So, we should think of LUN zero as being "allocated".
>
> NOTE: Someone (Brian?) in VA. said that Microsoft's driver
> will be extended to support more LUNs. There was a comment made
> (from the Microsoft rep?) that Microsoft still will not support
> dynamic LUNs.
>
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are recommending in comment (B) below.
> If this came
> > up at the Virginia meeting, can someone elaborate as if LUN 0
> for a
> > particular unit has been "allocated" by Microsoft or some
> other group?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> >
> > At 05:03 PM 5/14/98 -0700, Greg Shue wrote:
> > >
> > >Here's some comments on the Dynamic LUN notes sent out by
> Alan.
> > >
> > >A) I don't think the Dynamic Logical Unit Number scheme was
> > > intended to _multiplex_ applications to device functions.
> > > I think it is intended on providing the ability for a
> node
> > > to establish a unique connection to identical instances
> of
> > > a service without having to:
> > >
> > > 1- Assign fixed LUNs for each service instance
> > > 2- Crowd the Config ROM with redundant information
> > >
> > >B) After discussions with folks from Microsoft, I would
> strongly
> > > recommend NOT using LUN 0 (zero) for anything but a
> direct
> > > connection to an instance of the transport client. The
> LUN-server
> > > could easily be identified in the Config ROM as belonging
> to
> > > a different LUN. (Since it's really a different service
> > > than the transport client.)
> > >
> > >C) The SBP-2 initiator and target drivers do not change a
> bit.
> > > Reconnect proceeds normally. The initiator and target
> SBP-2
> > > drivers must already remember LUNs, EUI-64 values, and
> LoginIDs.
> > >
> > >D) The SBP-2 driver probably will already map connections
> (LoginIDs?)
> > > to a socket ID or some other appropriate OS mechanism.
> > >
> > >It still strikes me as a clean, simple way to get beyond the
> constraints
> > >of SBP-2 when appropriate. Best of all, it's optional!
> > >
> > >--
> > >Greg Shue
> > >Hewlett-Packard Company
> > >Office Products Division gregs@sdd.hp.com
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Greg Shue
> Hewlett-Packard Company
> Office Products Division gregs@sdd.hp.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
Greg Shue
Hewlett-Packard Company
Office Products Division			gregs@sdd.hp.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

Our website uses cookies on your device to give you the best user experience. By using our website, you agree to the placement of these cookies. To learn more, read our privacy policy. Read Privacy Policy