Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> ...
>
> If told to hold a reservation, then resend your reservation request once every
> 2 seconds (this actually has very minimal CPU/BUS usage and isn't as big a
> deal as requesting a reservation every 2 seconds might sound). The first time
> the reservation is refused,
At 3:57 PM -0400 2001-05-03, Eric Z. Ayers wrote:
>However distateful it sounds, there is precedent for the
>behavior that Doug is proposing in commercial clustering
>implementations. My recollection is that both Compaq TruCluster and
>HP Service Guard have logic that will panic the kernel when a
Pavel Machek writes:
> Hi!
>
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > If told to hold a reservation, then resend your reservation request once every
> > > > 2 seconds (this actually has very minimal CPU/BUS usage and isn't as big a
> > > > deal as requesting a reservation every 2 seconds might sound).
Hi!
> > > ...
> > >
> > > If told to hold a reservation, then resend your reservation request once every
> > > 2 seconds (this actually has very minimal CPU/BUS usage and isn't as big a
> > > deal as requesting a reservation every 2 seconds might sound). The first time
> > > the reservation is r
There is another nasty in multi-port arrays that I should perhaps point out:
a bus reset isn't supposed to drop the reservation if it was taken on another
port. A device or LUN reset will drop reservations on all ports. This
behaviour, although clearly mandated by the SCSI-3-SPC, is rather p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Correct, if you hold a reservation on a device for which you have
> multiple paths, you have to use the correct path.
As far as multi-path scsi reservations go, the SCSI-2 standards (and this
includes the completion in the SCSI-3 SPC) is very malleable. The standard i
Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> > Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> >>
> >> Umm. Reboot? What do you think this is? Windoze?
> >
> > It's the *only* way to guarantee that the drive is never touched by more
> > than one machine at a time (notice, I've not been talking about a
Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>>
>> Umm. Reboot? What do you think this is? Windoze?
>
> It's the *only* way to guarantee that the drive is never touched by more
> than one machine at a time (notice, I've not been talking about a shared
> use drive, only one machine in the
Mike Anderson wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> I guess I worded my question poorly. My question was around multi-path
> devices in combination with SCSI-2 reserve vs SCSI-3 persistent reserve which
> has not always been easy, but is more difficult is you use a name space that
> can slip or can have multiple
Doug,
I guess I worded my question poorly. My question was around multi-path
devices in combination with SCSI-2 reserve vs SCSI-3 persistent reserve which
has not always been easy, but is more difficult is you use a name space that
can slip or can have multiple entries for the same physical dev
Mike Anderson wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> A question on clarification.
>
> Is the configuration you are testing have both FC adapters going to the same
> port of the storage device (mutli-path) or to different ports of the storage
> device (mulit-port)?
>
> The reason I ask is that I thought if you a
Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > If told to hold a reservation, then resend your reservation request once every
> > 2 seconds (this actually has very minimal CPU/BUS usage and isn't as big a
> > deal as requesting a reservation every 2 seconds might sound).
Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> ...
>
> If told to hold a reservation, then resend your reservation request once every
> 2 seconds (this actually has very minimal CPU/BUS usage and isn't as big a
> deal as requesting a reservation every 2 seconds might sound). The first time
> the reservation is refuse
Doug,
A question on clarification.
Is the configuration you are testing have both FC adapters going to the same
port of the storage device (mutli-path) or to different ports of the storage
device (mulit-port)?
The reason I ask is that I thought if you are using SCSI-2 reserves that the
reserve
Hi Doug,
Great to hear your progress on this. As I had not heard anything about this
effort since this time last year I had assumed you put this project on the
shelf. I will be happy to test these interfaces when they are ready.
Eddie
> "Eric Z. Ayers" wrote:
> >
> > Doug Ledford writes:
"Eric Z. Ayers" wrote:
>
> Doug Ledford writes:
> (James Bottomley commented about the need for SCSI reservation kernel patches)
> >
> > I agree. It's something that needs fixed in general, your software needs it
> > as well, and I've written (about 80% done at this point) some open source
>
> reserved.But if you did such a hot swap you would have "bigger
> fish to fry" in a HA application... I mean, none of your data would be
> there!
You need to realise this has happened and do the right thing. Since
it could be an md raid array the hotswap is not fatal.
Alan Cox writes:
> > Does this package also tell the kernel to "re-establish" a
> > reservation for all devices after a bus reset, or at least inform a
> > user level program? Finding out when there has been a bus reset has
> > been a stumbling block for me.
>
> You cannot rely on a bus re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Does this package also tell the kernel to "re-establish" a reservation
> for all devices after a bus reset, or at least inform a user level
> program? Finding out when there has been a bus reset has been a
> stumbling block for me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> You cannot
> Does this package also tell the kernel to "re-establish" a
> reservation for all devices after a bus reset, or at least inform a
> user level program? Finding out when there has been a bus reset has
> been a stumbling block for me.
You cannot rely on a bus reset. Imagine hot swap disks on an F
Doug Ledford writes:
(James Bottomley commented about the need for SCSI reservation kernel patches)
>
> I agree. It's something that needs fixed in general, your software needs it
> as well, and I've written (about 80% done at this point) some open source
> software geared towards getting/ho
James Bottomley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > So, will Linux ever support the scsi reservation mechanism as standard?
>
> That's not within my gift. I can merely write the code that corrects the
> behaviour. I can't force anyone else to accept it.
I think it will be standard before n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> So, will Linux ever support the scsi reservation mechanism as standard?
That's not within my gift. I can merely write the code that corrects the
behaviour. I can't force anyone else to accept it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Isn't there a standard that says if you scsi
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:12 PM
To: Roets, Chris
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Cluster using shared scsi
I've copied linux SCSI and quoted the entire message below so they can
follow.
Your assertion that this works in 2.2.16 is inc
I've copied linux SCSI and quoted the entire message below so they can follow.
Your assertion that this works in 2.2.16 is incorrect, the patch to fix the
linux reservation conflict handler has never been added to the official tree.
I suspect you actually don't have vanilla 2.2.16 but instead
> Problem :
> install two Linux-system with a shared scsi-bus and storage on that shared
> bus.
> suppose :
> system one : SCSI ID 7
> system two : SCSI ID 6
> shared disk : SCSI ID 4
>
> By default, you can mount the disk on both system. This is normal
> behavior, but
> may impose data corrupti
26 matches
Mail list logo
