From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: RE: Is there a grand plan for FC failover? Date: 28 Jan 2004 17:16:51 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1075328212.2534.14.camel@mulgrave> References: <3356669BBE90C448AD4645C843E2BF2802C013B0@xbl.ma.emulex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat1.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.130]:3994 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266189AbUA1WRW (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:17:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3356669BBE90C448AD4645C843E2BF2802C013B0@xbl.ma.emulex.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Smart, James" Cc: 'Patrick Mansfield' , "Philip R. Auld" , Simon Kelley , SCSI Mailing List , dm-devel@sistina.com On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 16:02, Smart, James wrote: > I'd add one additional issue : > > 3) SCSI Reservations > > I guess this could be considered a part of (2), but given that reservations > bring in a host of additional problems, and potentially brings up multi-host > configs/clusters as well... The current crop of cluster implementations that use reservations manage quite well in user space alone. Certainly, though, the presence of reservations can interfere with failover code and may be considered a problem that needs to be solved in multi-path...it all depends on how the multi-path devices react to path switching in the face of reservations. I'm open to suggestions on this, but I think it should be done separately as part of a device ownership API. James