From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5BK7P004808 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:07:25 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.132]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5BK7Oi5016607 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:07:24 -0400 Received: from westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.32]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i5BK7Ixp473176 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:07:18 -0400 Received: from us.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i5BK7DlF207860 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:07:17 -0600 Message-ID: <40CA10AB.7040502@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:06:03 -0700 From: Mike Christie MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Multipath without round-robin? References: <20040610203309.GA18186@c9x.org> In-Reply-To: <20040610203309.GA18186@c9x.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Jedi/Sector One wrote: > Hello. > > I'm trying to get multipath working with LVM2 (2.6.7-rc2-udm2 kernel) with > an LSI storage array. > > The array has two FC controllers, HBAs are two identical Qlogic 2340. > > On the array, "preferred" controllers are assigned to each LUN. > > Unfortunately, it looks like dm-multipath always does round-robin load > balancing. path0 in group0, path1 in group1 etc. When path0 fails you use path1. Are you using multipath-tools or settiing up the table by hand. For mp-tools there is a failover setting. You still cannot so explciit failover but that is in the works. > The result is that the array fills up the (SANtricity) error log with > messages like "LUN was accessed through the wrong controller". > > Is there any way to keep failover abilities without load balancing? > > Best regards, > > -Frank. >