Re: [PATCH 0/4] tgt: Address issues with reservation preempt

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

> Hmm, then how can they live with NetApp?

I'm sure there are a number of NetApp customers that ask themselves
that question regularly.

It would be possible to re-implement the SCSI fencing script to use
preempt rather than preempt-abort, but I suspect the motivation for
prempt-abort is to prevent any outstanding i/o operations from
completing (because absent this, a successful preempt operation isn't
really equivalent to a fencing operation).  I'm not sure what the real
risks are in this situation.  Does anyone have any thoughts?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Index of Archives]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Clusters]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux