From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
David Dillow <dillowda@ornl.gov>
Subject: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Reducing the SRP initiator failover time
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:43:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <510BC68A.90708@acm.org> (raw)
It is known that it takes about two to three minutes before the upstream
SRP initiator fails over from a failed path to a working path. This is
not only considered longer than acceptable but is also longer than other
Linux SCSI initiators (e.g. iSCSI and FC). Progress so far with
improving the fail-over SRP initiator has been slow. This is because the
discussion about candidate patches occurred at two different levels: not
only the patches itself were discussed but also the approach that should
be followed. That last aspect is easier to discuss in a meeting than
over a mailing list. Hence the proposal to discuss SRP initiator
failover behavior during the LSF/MM summit. The topics that need further
discussion are:
* If a path fails, remove the entire SCSI host or preserve the SCSI
host and only remove the SCSI devices associated with that host ?
* Which software component should test the state of a path and should
reconnect to an SRP target if a path is restored ? Should that be
done by the user space process srp_daemon or by the SRP initiator
kernel module ?
* How should the SRP initiator behave after a path failure has been
detected ? Should the behavior be similar to the FC initiator with
its fast_io_fail_tmo and dev_loss_tmo parameters ?
Dave, if this topic gets accepted, I really hope you will be able to
attend the LSF/MM summit.
Bart.
next reply other threads:[~2013-02-01 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-01 13:43 Bart Van Assche [this message]
[not found] ` <510BC68A.90708-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org>
2013-02-04 12:13 ` [LSF/MM TOPIC] Reducing the SRP initiator failover time Sebastian Riemer
[not found] ` <CAJZOPZJeCdkJ0xfK0kxic9jfz5A5ddw7TSWXe51yuO6bYTk4ag@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <BB97625FCF082447AC2B11418FF02044A6E9E9C5@MTLDAG01.mtl.com>
[not found] ` <BB97625FCF082447AC2B11418FF02044A6E9E9C5-fViJhHBwANKuSA5JZHE7gA@public.gmane.org>
2013-02-07 22:42 ` Vu Pham
[not found] ` <51142DE9.30900-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
2013-02-08 9:24 ` Sagi Grimberg
2013-02-08 11:38 ` Sebastian Riemer
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=510BC68A.90708@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=dillowda@ornl.gov \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.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.