From: Michael Reed <mdr@sgi.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Cc: James.Smart@Emulex.Com, Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@sgi.com>,
Gary Hagensen <gwh@sgi.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, Jim Nead <jnead@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: fc transport creates second set of targets for devices in an "md"
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:35:52 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4489A368.3080105@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1149813836.3276.3.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 14:13 -0500, Michael Reed wrote:
>> I created an md device on two fibre channel disks, sde and sdf.
>> I then disabled the switch port to which the hba is connected.
>> After the remote port time out messages, I re-enabled the switch
>> port. Three things happen that are weird. First, two unexpected
>> responses while scanning. Second, the creation of sdm and
>> sdn. Third, the md device remains inaccessible.
>
> This is sort of as expected. What you did was wait out the reconnection
> timer, so the mid layer failed and offlined the devices. Thus, when
> they come back, they get new instances. If you'd done a remove-device
> after they went offline, they'd have come back to the same location (as
> long as nothing had them open). But this is user level stuff.
In this instance, there was no i/o in progress so the mid-layer didn't
take the device off line. It was simply removed by the transport.
> Basically, when a path goes dead it's up to the multi-path user level to
> remove it an wait for udev to inform it that another SCSI node has
> appeared and has the correct signature to be another path to the device.
Are there notification mechanisms in place such that a driver which has
the device opened (claimed?) will be notified upon it's removal? Should
there be? Could it happen via a driver callback? Udev? Both?
I like the idea of a callback so that the removal has a chance of being
complete.
Is it possible to do a better job of reconnecting a removed target
to an open sd?
Thanks,
Mike
>
>> I don't think this is working the way it's intended to. I
>> suspect it will cause big problems for multi-path volume managers
>> in a fail back situation.
>
> James
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-09 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-08 19:13 fc transport creates second set of targets for devices in an "md" Michael Reed
2006-06-08 19:57 ` James Smart
2006-06-09 16:26 ` Michael Reed
2006-06-09 18:10 ` Michael Reed
2006-06-09 18:22 ` Michael Reed
2006-06-08 20:19 ` Mike Christie
2006-06-09 16:35 ` Michael Reed
2006-06-09 19:34 ` Mike Christie
2006-06-09 19:52 ` James Smart
2006-06-09 0:43 ` James Bottomley
2006-06-09 16:35 ` Michael Reed [this message]
2006-06-09 19:23 ` James Bottomley
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=4489A368.3080105@sgi.com \
--to=mdr@sgi.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=James.Smart@Emulex.Com \
--cc=gwh@sgi.com \
--cc=jeremy@sgi.com \
--cc=jnead@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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