All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Mansfield <patmans@us.ibm.com>
To: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>
Cc: steve cameron <steve.cameron@hp.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Accessing the same disk via multiple channels
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:17:44 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030214101744.A25645@beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030214162722.GB11209@marowsky-bree.de>; from lmb@suse.de on Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:27:22PM +0100

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:27:22PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:

> Indeed. Yes, we'll need to figure out how to do this for 2.5/2.6; maybe
> porting forward the md m-p patch to 2.5 is indeed the best choice. It should
> be way easier, as md has been greatly cleaned up...

> However, past discussions on LKML regarding "How to do m-p cleanly in 2.5"
> have never reached a conclusion ;-) We'll see. The good thing about the SCSI
> m-p is that it can also handle multipathed tape drives...

I thought the general consensus was it is OK for now (as a first go) to
have scsi only multi-path, I have not heard anyone say don't do scsi
multi-path. And then later (maybe after we have more than one subsystem
supporting multi-path IO) we can add general multi-path support into the
layers above scsi.

In any case, md or volume manager based multi-path solutions are good
alternatives.

I have recently ported the scsi multi-path patch to 2.5.59, but haven't
posted patches.

The current multi-path patch still needs at least two major changes in
scsi: error recovery (scsi_error.c) that allows other paths to be used
without long delays, and a per-device queue_lock versus the current
per-host queue_lock.

Hopefully we can get underlying changes for those last two into 2.5 (and
maybe someday the multi-path patch), as they are improvements to scsi with
or without multi-path.

-- Patrick Mansfield

  reply	other threads:[~2003-02-14 18:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-14  3:20 Accessing the same disk via multiple channels steve cameron
2003-02-14 16:27 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2003-02-14 18:17   ` Patrick Mansfield [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-13 19:49 Jurjen Oskam
2003-02-13 22:45 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2003-02-14 10:03   ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2003-02-14 22:01     ` Tim Pepper
2003-02-14 23:37       ` Patrick Mansfield
2003-02-17  9:52         ` Lars Marowsky-Bree

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030214101744.A25645@beaverton.ibm.com \
    --to=patmans@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lmb@suse.de \
    --cc=steve.cameron@hp.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.