From: Ryan W. <rw...@in...> - 2007-09-25 18:03:13
|
I was trying to limit more than one machine mounting a LUN to prevent = data corruption- I got it setup in the initiators.allow|deny files. Does the daemon need to be restarted for those files to be re-read? -Ryan Whelan Network Administrator Inquisicorp Corporation PGP Key ID - 0x02A7FA1D -----Original Message----- From: Ross S. W. Walker [mailto:rw...@me...]=20 Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:49 AM To: bla...@gm... Cc: Ryan Whelan; isc...@li... Subject: RE: [Iscsitarget-devel] MaxConnections config option ignored? Ming Zhang wrote: >=20 > On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 13:11 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > Ming Zhang wrote: > > >=20 > > > On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 11:58 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > > > Ming Zhang wrote: > > > > >=20 > > > > > On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 09:11 -0600, Ryan Whelan wrote: > > > > > > I have looked all over the internet for an answer, and=20 > > > am completely > > > > > > out of places to look.. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > =20 > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Is the 'MaxConnections' option ignored? Even when set to 1=20 > > > > > I am still > > > > > > able to connect multiple initiators to the same target. > > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > yes, right now it is ignored. it is very hard to correctly=20 > > > > > maintain how > > > > > many active ini connect to one target. then it is hard to=20 > > > enforce this > > > > > rule properly. > > > >=20 > > > > MaxConnections determines how many connections per-session=20 > > > to allow, not > > > > how many sessions. Right now IET doesn't support MC/S so it=20 > > > is hard-coded > > > > to only allow 1 connection per-session. > > > >=20 > > > > Hope that helps. > > >=20 > > > oops, i messed up with a patch that allows ini to have exclusive > > > access... > >=20 > > Best way to do that is through initiator allow/deny or CHAP auth, > > don't see where a custom patch would provide much more. >=20 > 2 ini are allowed to access same target, but only allow one ini to > access at one time. So it is a poor man's clustering solution? You could try taking the reverted per-initiator reserve/release patch from SF and modify it to do auto reserve/release with enforcement. What is the OP trying to do? -Ross ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof. |