All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

             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.