> On Feb 3, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
> sd.conf is ugly as hell though.
agree 100%
>
> What we *really* need is a better tunable system — more like what we have
> with dladm for NICs, but intended for storage. I think we’d like to be able
> to set tunables for both targets
sd.conf is ugly as hell though.
What we *really* need is a better tunable system — more like what we have
with dladm for NICs, but intended for storage. I think we’d like to be
able to set tunables for both targets and HBAs. I have some ideas here,
but precious little time to do anything about i
> On Feb 3, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Igor Kozhukhov wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> i’d like to propose implenetation for soft-hba property for scsi layer with
> timing updates.
>
> Problem: we have hw hba like LSI, where we are using direct connetion of
> drives to HBA with low latency.
In the past, we’ve
Hi All,
i’d like to propose implenetation for soft-hba property for scsi layer with
timing updates.
Problem: we have hw hba like LSI, where we are using direct connetion of drives
to HBA with low latency.
We have iSCSI drives with sd module usage where we try to use timing related to
HW HBA.
