From: Jamie Bainbridge <jbainbri@redhat.com>
To: Martin George <marting@netapp.com>
Cc: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Bug 999761 - Review NetApp path_checker and features for RHEL5 mpath
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 03:23:40 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1109366671.9231767.1378279420548.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5225A33F.80805@netapp.com>
Thanks Martin.
So it just seems the documentation in multipath.conf.defaults is outdated.
I've closed my previous bug, and logged a new bug with a patch for the docs:
Bug 1004179 - Documented NetApp device in multipath.conf.defaults is outdated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004179
Regards,
Jamie Bainbridge
Red Hat Asia Pacific
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin George" <marting@netapp.com>
> To: "Jamie Bainbridge" <jbainbri@redhat.com>
> Cc: "device-mapper development" <dm-devel@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 September, 2013 6:52:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Bug 999761 - Review NetApp path_checker and features for RHEL5 mpath
>
> On 9/3/2013 5:22 AM, Jamie Bainbridge wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was wondering if I could get a response on this bug?
> >
> > Bug 999761 - Review NetApp path_checker and features for RHEL5 mpath
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999761
> >
> > In Bug 799842 NetApp requested that we change the default path_checker for
> > NETAPP devices in RHEL 6.3 from directio to tur.
> >
> > * Would we consider changing the default hwtable in RHEL5, considering it's
> > in Production 2?
> >
> > * Given NetApp reference the async tur improvements from Bug 760852 as part
> > of their decision to use tur, is tur suitable for current RHEL5, or should
> > we stick with directio?
> >
> > * If tur is suitable for current RHEL5, should we change the default RHEL5
> > hwtable to use tur?
> >
> > In Bug 799842 Comment 10 NetApp also requested we change the default
> > features for NETAPP devices in RHEL 6.3 from "1 queue_if_no_path" to "3
> > queue_if_no_path pg_init_retries 50".
> >
> > * pg_init_retries has been in RHEL5 since 5.2, is pg_init_retries suitable
> > for current RHEL5 also? (this seems to be an easy "yes")
> >
> > * If pg_init_retries is suitable for current RHEL5, should we change the
> > default RHEL5 hwtable to use pg_init_retries?
> >
>
> On newer RHEL5 kernels like RHEL 5.9, the above changes (i.e. 'tur' path
> checker & enabling pg_init_retries) have already made it to the hwtable
> for NetApp LUNs - addressed in device-mapper-multipath-0.4.7-51.el5.
>
> -Martin
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-04 7:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-02 23:52 Bug 999761 - Review NetApp path_checker and features for RHEL5 mpath Jamie Bainbridge
2013-09-03 8:52 ` Martin George
2013-09-04 7:23 ` Jamie Bainbridge [this message]
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=1109366671.9231767.1378279420548.JavaMail.root@redhat.com \
--to=jbainbri@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=marting@netapp.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).