From: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Multi-path IO in 2.5/2.6 ?
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:52:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020911195232.GH1212@marowsky-bree.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200209111937.g8BJbfQ02442@localhost.localdomain>
On 2002-09-11T14:37:40,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com> said:
> I think I see driverfs as the solution here. Topology is deduced by
> examining certain device and HBA parameters. As long as these parameters
> can be exposed as nodes in the device directory for driverfs, a user level
> daemon map the topology and connect the paths at the top. It should even be
> possible to weight the constructed multi-paths.
Perfect, I agree, should've thought of it. As long as this is simple enough
that it can be done in initrd (if / is on a multipath device...).
The required weighting has already been implemented in the LVM1 patch by IBM.
While it appeared overkill to me for "simple" cases, I think it is suited to
expressing proximity.
> This solution appeals because the kernel doesn't have to dictate policy,
Right.
> I've been think about this separately. FC in particular needs some type of
> event notification API (something like "I've just seen this disk" or "my
> loop just went down"). I'd like to leverage a mid-layer api into hot plug
> for some of this, but I don't have the details worked out.
This isn't just FC, but also dasd on S/390. Potentially also network block
devices, which can notice a link down.
> The probing issue is an interesting one. At least SCSI has the ability to
> probe with no IO (something like a TEST UNIT READY) and I assume other block
> devices have something similar. Would it make sense to tie this to a single
> well known ioctl so that you can probe any device that supports it without
> having to send real I/O?
Not sufficient. The test is policy, so the above applies here too ;-)
In the case of talking to a dual headed RAID box for example, TEST UNIT READY
might return OK, but the controller might refuse actual IO, or the path may be
somehow damaged in a way which is only detected by doing some "large" IO. Now,
this might be total overkill for other scenarios.
I vote for exposing the path via driverfs (which, I think, is already
concensus so the multipath group, topology etc can be used) and allowing
user-space to reenable them after doing whatever probing deemed necessary.
What are your ideas on the potential timeframe?
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>
--
Immortality is an adequate definition of high availability for me.
--- Gregory F. Pfister
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-11 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-09 14:57 [RFC] Multi-path IO in 2.5/2.6 ? James Bottomley
2002-09-09 16:56 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-09 17:34 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-09 18:40 ` Mike Anderson
2002-09-10 13:02 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2002-09-10 16:03 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-10 16:27 ` Mike Anderson
2002-09-10 0:08 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-10 7:55 ` Jeremy Higdon
2002-09-10 13:04 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2002-09-10 16:20 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-10 13:16 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2002-09-10 19:26 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-11 14:20 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-11 19:17 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2002-09-11 19:37 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-11 19:52 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree [this message]
2002-09-12 1:15 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2002-09-11 21:38 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-09-11 20:30 ` Doug Ledford
2002-09-11 21:17 ` Mike Anderson
2002-09-10 17:21 ` Patrick Mochel
2002-09-10 18:42 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-10 19:00 ` Patrick Mochel
2002-09-10 19:37 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-11 0:21 ` Neil Brown
[not found] <patmans@us.ibm.com>
2002-10-30 16:58 ` [PATCH] 2.5 current bk fix setting scsi queue depths Patrick Mansfield
2002-10-30 17:17 ` James Bottomley
2002-10-30 18:05 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-10-31 0:44 ` James Bottomley
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-10 16:34 [RFC] Multi-path IO in 2.5/2.6 ? Cameron, Steve
2002-09-10 18:48 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-10 14:43 Cameron, Steve
2002-09-10 15:05 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-10 14:06 Cameron, Steve
2002-09-10 14:25 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-09 17:58 Ulrich Weigand
2002-09-09 10:49 Lars Marowsky-Bree
2002-09-09 12:23 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-10 10:30 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
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=20020911195232.GH1212@marowsky-bree.de \
--to=lmb@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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