From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Whiter Subject: Re: Question about Multibus+Failover Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:10:50 -0500 Message-ID: <4395FE5A.7020300@redhat.com> References: <4395F683.1000900@redhat.com> <1133903711.5650.17.camel@zezette> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1133903711.5650.17.camel@zezette> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: device-mapper development List-Id: dm-devel.ids Christophe Varoqui wrote: >On mar, 2005-12-06 at 15:37 -0500, Josef Whiter wrote: > > >>Hello, >> >>I've had several requests about loadbalancing coupled with failover for >>dm multipathing. I know with failover you get just failover, and >>multibus you get just load balancing, but I was wondering if there was a >>hybrid option for load balancing that would handle a failed path >>gracefully. Thanks much, >> >> >> >Failed paths are handled quite gracefully in all grouping policies. > >That said, other stock grouping policies are at your disposal : >group_by_serial or group_by_node_name or the special group_by_prio that >let you do your own grouping policy with callouts (shell scripts or >whatever). > >Please have a look at the documentation available. > >Regards, >cvaroqui > > > Hmm, then perhaps I've been seeing errant behavior, b/c everytime somebody uses multibus and they fail a path they get a bunch of IO errors and the FS is remounted, but if they use failover and pull the active connection, there are no errors and the failover is seamless. I shall investigate further on what they are seeing. Thank you, Josef -- Josef Whiter, RHCE Global Support Services Red Hat, Inc. 919-754-3700 x44429