From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: Is there a grand plan for FC failover? Date: 26 Jan 2004 09:37:25 -0600 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1075131446.2290.29.camel@mulgrave> References: <401521A7.5030808@thekelleys.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat1.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.130]:5839 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263851AbUAZPh2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:37:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <401521A7.5030808@thekelleys.org.uk> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Simon Kelley Cc: SCSI Mailing List On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 08:18, Simon Kelley wrote: > I see that 2.6.x kernels now have the qla2xxx driver in the mainline, > but without the failover code. > > What is the reason for that? Is there a plan provide failover facilities > at a higher level which will be usable with all suitable low-level > drivers and hardware? > > I'm very much in favour of using drivers which are developed in the > kernel mainline but I have an application which needs failover so I > might be forced back to the qlogic-distributed code. Yes, the direction coming out of KS/OLS last year was to use the dm or md multi-path code to sit the failover driver on top of sd (or any other block driver). The idea being that the Volume Manager layer is the most stack generic place to do this type of thing. The thread on this is here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106005575400003 James