From: Patrick Mansfield <patmans@us.ibm.com>
To: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>
Cc: steve cameron <steve.cameron@hp.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Accessing the same disk via multiple channels
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:17:44 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030214101744.A25645@beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030214162722.GB11209@marowsky-bree.de>; from lmb@suse.de on Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:27:22PM +0100
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:27:22PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Indeed. Yes, we'll need to figure out how to do this for 2.5/2.6; maybe
> porting forward the md m-p patch to 2.5 is indeed the best choice. It should
> be way easier, as md has been greatly cleaned up...
> However, past discussions on LKML regarding "How to do m-p cleanly in 2.5"
> have never reached a conclusion ;-) We'll see. The good thing about the SCSI
> m-p is that it can also handle multipathed tape drives...
I thought the general consensus was it is OK for now (as a first go) to
have scsi only multi-path, I have not heard anyone say don't do scsi
multi-path. And then later (maybe after we have more than one subsystem
supporting multi-path IO) we can add general multi-path support into the
layers above scsi.
In any case, md or volume manager based multi-path solutions are good
alternatives.
I have recently ported the scsi multi-path patch to 2.5.59, but haven't
posted patches.
The current multi-path patch still needs at least two major changes in
scsi: error recovery (scsi_error.c) that allows other paths to be used
without long delays, and a per-device queue_lock versus the current
per-host queue_lock.
Hopefully we can get underlying changes for those last two into 2.5 (and
maybe someday the multi-path patch), as they are improvements to scsi with
or without multi-path.
-- Patrick Mansfield
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-14 18:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-14 3:20 Accessing the same disk via multiple channels steve cameron
2003-02-14 16:27 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2003-02-14 18:17 ` Patrick Mansfield [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-13 19:49 Jurjen Oskam
2003-02-13 22:45 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2003-02-14 10:03 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2003-02-14 22:01 ` Tim Pepper
2003-02-14 23:37 ` Patrick Mansfield
2003-02-17 9:52 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
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=20030214101744.A25645@beaverton.ibm.com \
--to=patmans@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lmb@suse.de \
--cc=steve.cameron@hp.com \
/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