From: Tore Anderson <tore@linpro.no>
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: failover vs multibus
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:32:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4742EFE6.6030808@linpro.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <342d47870711200619u13d3a960see0d0cf5e65326bf@mail.gmail.com>
* Scott Moseman
> Re: default_path_grouping_policy in multipath.conf
>
> failover = 1 path per priority group
> multibus = all valid paths in 1 priority group
>
> Does this mean that if I'm using failover I'm not going to get
> multiple path throughput? And, on the flip side, if I'm sending data
> through multiple paths I'm not going to get failover support?
Correct, and incorrect. With "failover" topology only one path will be
used at a time. With "multibus" all of them will be - but failing paths
_will not_ be used. So if you have eight paths to your storage and are
using multibus topology, load will be balanced over all eight paths. If
one fails, load will be balanced over the remaining seven. And if you
fix the failed path I/O will be balanced over all eight again.
There's also the group_by_prio or group_by_serial topologies which is
normally used in setups with an active/passive controller pair (most
midrange gear are built in this way). In this case I/O is load balanced
over all the paths to the primary controller of a volume only, while the
remaining paths (usually to a standby controller) will only be used if
all (or enough) of the primary paths fail.
Regards
--
Tore Anderson
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-20 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-20 14:19 failover vs multibus Scott Moseman
2007-11-20 14:32 ` Tore Anderson [this message]
2007-11-21 14:54 ` Scott Moseman
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=4742EFE6.6030808@linpro.no \
--to=tore@linpro.no \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.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.