Re: [PATCH 0/2] 'default' hardware handler for multipath

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hannes,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Reinecke [mailto:hare@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:08 AM
> To: Moger, Babu
> Cc: device-mapper development; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mike Snitzer
> Subject: Re:  [PATCH 0/2] 'default' hardware handler for multipath
> 
> On 04/03/2012 11:12 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> > Thanks Hannes. We appreciate your work on this.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dm-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dm-devel-
> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hannes Reinecke
> >> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:44 AM
> >> To: linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Cc: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx; Mike Snitzer
> >> Subject:  [PATCH 0/2] 'default' hardware handler for multipath
> >>
> >> This patchset introduces a 'default' hardware handler for dm-multipath.
> >> Modern storage arrays typically support two failover methods, the original
> >> proprietary and the modern ALUA-based one.
> >> The device_handler implementation will currently select the ALUA
> handler,
> >> and falling back to the proprietary one if ALUA isn't supported.
> >> However, in the built-in hardware table for multipath one can specify only
> >> one hardware handler, causing the original hardware handler to be
> >> overwritten.
> >> By specifying a 'default' hardware handler multipath will not try to attach a
> >> specific hardware handler, but rather using the currently attached on.
> >
> > I think we still have some issues here. Right now we load the driver
> > either by adding it in initrd or by using request_module call from device
> mapper.
> > If the user passes, hardware_handler   "1 default"  from multipath then
> request_module will fail.
> > How are we going to load the driver if these handlers are not loaded.
> >
> The idea of the 'default' hardware handler is to avoid multipath
> overriding the kernel matchine algorithm. To make this work we
> obviously have to load the modules prior to start multipathing.
> 
> Given that we (ie RH and us) are already loading the device-handler
> modules from the initrd independent from multipathing we should be fine.
> 
> But thinking a bit more about it, it might be better to handle this
> via features.
> Implementing a feature like 'default_hw_handler' would not override
> the default hardware handler from the hardware table.
> So the requested hardware handler would still be loaded, but the
> actual initialisation would be controlled via the feature.

hardware_handler is also used to pass on the arguments to handler. Like.
	hardware_handler        "2 emc 1"
We have to make sure that this feature does not break here. Considering all this 
don't you think it may be better if we make this decision in multipath tools itself.
Common factor here is alua. It is always between alua or some other handler.
Does it make sense to check TPGS in tools? 

> Yep, that sound better.
> I'll be preparing a patch.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hannes
> --
> Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
> hare@xxxxxxx			      +49 911 74053 688
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
> GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel



[DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

Add to Google Powered by Linux