From: Michael Reed <mdr@sgi.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Cc: James.Smart@Emulex.Com, Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@sgi.com>,
Gary Hagensen <gwh@sgi.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, Jim Nead <jnead@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: fc transport creates second set of targets for devices in an "md"
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:35:52 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4489A368.3080105@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1149813836.3276.3.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 14:13 -0500, Michael Reed wrote:
>> I created an md device on two fibre channel disks, sde and sdf.
>> I then disabled the switch port to which the hba is connected.
>> After the remote port time out messages, I re-enabled the switch
>> port. Three things happen that are weird. First, two unexpected
>> responses while scanning. Second, the creation of sdm and
>> sdn. Third, the md device remains inaccessible.
>
> This is sort of as expected. What you did was wait out the reconnection
> timer, so the mid layer failed and offlined the devices. Thus, when
> they come back, they get new instances. If you'd done a remove-device
> after they went offline, they'd have come back to the same location (as
> long as nothing had them open). But this is user level stuff.
In this instance, there was no i/o in progress so the mid-layer didn't
take the device off line. It was simply removed by the transport.
> Basically, when a path goes dead it's up to the multi-path user level to
> remove it an wait for udev to inform it that another SCSI node has
> appeared and has the correct signature to be another path to the device.
Are there notification mechanisms in place such that a driver which has
the device opened (claimed?) will be notified upon it's removal? Should
there be? Could it happen via a driver callback? Udev? Both?
I like the idea of a callback so that the removal has a chance of being
complete.
Is it possible to do a better job of reconnecting a removed target
to an open sd?
Thanks,
Mike
>
>> I don't think this is working the way it's intended to. I
>> suspect it will cause big problems for multi-path volume managers
>> in a fail back situation.
>
> James
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-09 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-08 19:13 fc transport creates second set of targets for devices in an "md" Michael Reed
2006-06-08 19:57 ` James Smart
2006-06-09 16:26 ` Michael Reed
2006-06-09 18:10 ` Michael Reed
2006-06-09 18:22 ` Michael Reed
2006-06-08 20:19 ` Mike Christie
2006-06-09 16:35 ` Michael Reed
2006-06-09 19:34 ` Mike Christie
2006-06-09 19:52 ` James Smart
2006-06-09 0:43 ` James Bottomley
2006-06-09 16:35 ` Michael Reed [this message]
2006-06-09 19:23 ` James Bottomley
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=4489A368.3080105@sgi.com \
--to=mdr@sgi.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=James.Smart@Emulex.Com \
--cc=gwh@sgi.com \
--cc=jeremy@sgi.com \
--cc=jnead@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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.