[PVE-User] SPC-3 PR compliance

David Lawley davel at upilab.com
Thu Dec 11 14:57:34 CET 2014


Thanks! SAN is trunked as is Proxmox nodes. Project during the next 
maintenance window I suppose

On 12/11/2014 6:54 AM, Lutz Markus Willek wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Please check dmesg, messages like "SPC-3 [...] Received res_key: [...] does not match [...]"
> uname -a ?
>
> multipath (dm-multipath) is not mandatory, have a look at https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/ISCSI_Multipath
> If you are not using multipath, of course you should trunk (i.e bonding, 802.3ad/lacp) your network to provide multiple paths to the storage. As a rule of thumb, multipath is slightly faster and a bit more reliable, bonding somewhat easier to implement, because neither adjustments nor maintenance of the multipath/lvm configuration files are required. I personally prefer multipath.
>
> Regards Lutz
>
> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von:David Lawley <davel at upilab.com>
>> Gesendet: Fre 5 Dezember 2014 21:42
>> An: pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
>> Betreff: [PVE-User] SPC-3 PR compliance
>>
>> My storage SAN is a ScaleComputing cluster.
>>
>> It claims to have SPC-3 PR compliant iscsi targets.
>>
>> I have 3 targets setup with SPC-3 enabled and connected to the Proxmox
>> cluster.
>>
>> using sg_persist -n -i -k -d /dev/sd(x) on each connected iscsi
>> connection from Promox gives the following result
>>
>> PR generation=0x0, there are NO registered reservation keys
>>
>> Vendor says that multi path is not required when using SPC-3 PR on the
>> san, but I would suppose that also means that the initiator would also
>> need to be compatible?
>>
>> So I'm asking if the consensus is muti path is required no matter what
>> on the Proxmox nodes or is SPC-3 really doing it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pve-user mailing list
>> pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
>> http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
>>




More information about the pve-user mailing list