From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
David Dillow <dillowda@ornl.gov>
Subject: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Reducing the SRP initiator failover time
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:43:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <510BC68A.90708@acm.org> (raw)
It is known that it takes about two to three minutes before the upstream
SRP initiator fails over from a failed path to a working path. This is
not only considered longer than acceptable but is also longer than other
Linux SCSI initiators (e.g. iSCSI and FC). Progress so far with
improving the fail-over SRP initiator has been slow. This is because the
discussion about candidate patches occurred at two different levels: not
only the patches itself were discussed but also the approach that should
be followed. That last aspect is easier to discuss in a meeting than
over a mailing list. Hence the proposal to discuss SRP initiator
failover behavior during the LSF/MM summit. The topics that need further
discussion are:
* If a path fails, remove the entire SCSI host or preserve the SCSI
host and only remove the SCSI devices associated with that host ?
* Which software component should test the state of a path and should
reconnect to an SRP target if a path is restored ? Should that be
done by the user space process srp_daemon or by the SRP initiator
kernel module ?
* How should the SRP initiator behave after a path failure has been
detected ? Should the behavior be similar to the FC initiator with
its fast_io_fail_tmo and dev_loss_tmo parameters ?
Dave, if this topic gets accepted, I really hope you will be able to
attend the LSF/MM summit.
Bart.
next reply other threads:[~2013-02-01 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-01 13:43 Bart Van Assche [this message]
[not found] ` <CAJZOPZJeCdkJ0xfK0kxic9jfz5A5ddw7TSWXe51yuO6bYTk4ag@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <BB97625FCF082447AC2B11418FF02044A6E9E9C5@MTLDAG01.mtl.com>
[not found] ` <BB97625FCF082447AC2B11418FF02044A6E9E9C5-fViJhHBwANKuSA5JZHE7gA@public.gmane.org>
2013-02-07 22:42 ` [LSF/MM TOPIC] Reducing the SRP initiator failover time Vu Pham
[not found] ` <51142DE9.30900-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
2013-02-08 9:24 ` Sagi Grimberg
2013-02-08 11:38 ` Sebastian Riemer
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=510BC68A.90708@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=dillowda@ornl.gov \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).