From: snitzer@redhat.com (Mike Snitzer)
Subject: hch's native NVMe multipathing [was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Don't blacklist nvme]
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170216025357.GA9241@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170215145617.GA4241@infradead.org>
On Wed, Feb 15 2017 at 9:56am -0500,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017@04:19:13PM -0500, Keith Busch wrote:
> > These devices are mulitpath capable, and have been able to stack with
> > dm-mpath since kernel 4.2.
>
> Can we make this conditional on something? I have native NVMe
> multipathing almost ready for the next merge window which is a lot easier
> to use and faster than dm. So I don't want us to be locked into this
> mode just before that.
You've avoided discussing this on any level (and I guess you aren't
going to LSF/MM?). Yet you're expecting to just drop it into the tree
without a care in the world about the implications.
Nobody has interest in Linux multipathing becoming fragmented.
If every transport implemented their own multipathing the end-user would
be amazingly screwed trying to keep track of all the
quirks/configuration/management of each.
Not saying multipath-tools is great, nor that DM multipath is god's
gift. But substantiating _why_ you need this "native NVMe
multipathing" would go a really long way to justifying your effort.
For starters, how about you show just how much better than DM multipath
this native NVMe multipathing performs? NOTE: it'd imply you put effort
to making DM multipath work with NVMe.. if you've sat on that code too
that'd be amazingly unfortunate/frustrating.
next parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-16 2:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1487107154-24883-1-git-send-email-keith.busch@intel.com>
[not found] ` <20170215145617.GA4241@infradead.org>
2017-02-16 2:53 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2017-02-16 5:00 ` [dm-devel] hch's native NVMe multipathing [was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Don't blacklist nvme] Bart Van Assche
2017-02-16 12:37 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-02-16 19:46 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-16 20:23 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-02-16 20:58 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-16 14:26 ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-16 15:13 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-02-16 17:38 ` Keith Busch
2017-02-16 17:37 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-16 18:07 ` Keith Busch
2017-02-16 18:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-02-16 20:40 ` Keith Busch
2017-02-17 9:04 ` [dm-devel] " hch
2017-02-17 14:43 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-02-16 18:05 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-02-17 9:05 ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-17 14:37 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-02-17 9:33 ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-17 14:32 ` Mike Snitzer
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=20170216025357.GA9241@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox