From: snitzer@redhat.com (Mike Snitzer)
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:17:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180531181757.GB11848@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180531163311.GA30954@lst.de>
On Thu, May 31 2018 at 12:33pm -0400,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018@06:02:06PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Because once nvme_core.multipath=N is set: native NVMe multipath is then
> > not accessible from the same host. The goal of this patchset is to give
> > users choice. But not limit them to _only_ using dm-multipath if they
> > just have some legacy needs.
>
> Choise by itself really isn't an argument. We need a really good
> use case for all the complexity, and so far none has been presented.
OK, but its choice that is governed by higher level requirements that _I_
personally don't have. They are large datacenter deployments like
Hannes eluded to [1] where there is heavy automation and/or layered
products that are developed around dm-multipath (via libraries to access
multipath-tools provided info, etc).
So trying to pin me down on _why_ users elect to make this choice (or
that there is such annoying inertia behind their choice) really isn't
fair TBH. They exist. Please just accept that.
Now another hypothetical usecase I thought of today, that really drives
home _why_ it useful to have this fine-grained 'mpath_personality'
flexibility is: admin containers. (not saying people or companies
currently, or plan to, do this but they very easily could...):
1) container A is tasked with managing some dedicated NVMe technology
that absolutely needs native NVMe multipath.
2) container B is tasked with offering some canned layered product that
was developed ontop of dm-multipath with its own multipath-tools
oriented APIs, etc. And it is to manage some other NVMe technology on
the same host as container A.
So, containers with conflicting requirements running on the same host.
Now you can say: sorry don't do that. But that really isn't a valid
counter.
Point is it really is meaningful to offer this 'mpath_personality'
switch. I'm obviously hopeful for it to not be heavily used BUT not
providing the ability for native NVMe multipath and dm-multipath to
coexist on the same Linux host really isn't viable in the near-term.
Mike
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/29/95
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-31 18:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-25 12:53 [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing Johannes Thumshirn
2018-05-25 12:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] nvme: provide a way to disable nvme mpath per subsystem Johannes Thumshirn
2018-05-25 13:47 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-31 8:17 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-05-25 12:53 ` [PATCH 2/3] nvme multipath: added SUBSYS_ATTR_RW Johannes Thumshirn
2018-05-25 12:53 ` [PATCH 3/3] nvme multipath: add dev_attr_mpath_personality Johannes Thumshirn
2018-05-25 13:05 ` [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-25 13:58 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-25 14:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-25 14:50 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-29 1:19 ` Martin K. Petersen
2018-05-29 3:02 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-29 7:18 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-05-29 7:22 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-05-29 8:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-29 9:54 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-29 23:27 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-30 19:05 ` Jens Axboe
2018-05-30 19:59 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-06-04 6:19 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-06-04 7:18 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-06-04 12:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-04 13:27 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-31 2:42 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-30 21:20 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-05-30 22:02 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-31 8:37 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-05-31 12:37 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-31 16:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-01 4:11 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-31 16:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-31 16:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-31 18:17 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2018-06-01 2:40 ` Martin K. Petersen
2018-06-01 4:24 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-06-01 14:09 ` Martin K. Petersen
2018-06-01 15:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-06-03 11:00 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-06-03 16:06 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-06-04 11:46 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-06-04 12:48 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-05-30 22:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-31 8:51 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-05-31 12:41 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-06-04 21:58 ` Roland Dreier
2018-06-05 4:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-05 22:57 ` Roland Dreier
2018-06-06 9:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-06 9:32 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-06-06 9:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-25 14:22 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-05-25 14:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20180531181757.GB11848@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).