This is the same configuration we use on 4 separate servers (T2000, two 
X4100, and a V215).  We do use a different iSCSI solution, but we have 
the same multi path config setup with scsi_vhci.  Dual GigE switches on 
separate NICs both server and iSCSI node side.  We suffered from the 
e1000g interface flapping bug, on two of these systems, and one time a 
SAN interface went down to stay (until reboot).  The vhci multi path 
performed flawlessly.  I scrubbed the pools (one of them is 10TB) and no 
errors were found, even though we had heavy IO at the time of the NIC 
failure.  I think this configuration is a good one.

Jon

Gary Mills wrote:
> I'm testing an Iscsi multipath configuration on a T2000 with two disk
> devices provided by a Netapp filer.  Both the T2000 and the Netapp
> have two ethernet interfaces for Iscsi, going to separate switches on
> separate private networks.  The scsi_vhci devices look like this in
> `format':
>
>        1. c4t60A98000433469764E4A413571444B63d0 <NETAPP-LUN-0.2-50.00GB>
>           /scsi_vhci/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>        2. c4t60A98000433469764E4A41357149432Fd0 <NETAPP-LUN-0.2-50.00GB>
>           /scsi_vhci/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> These are concatenated in the ZFS pool.  There are two network paths
> to each of the two devices, managed by the scsi_vhci driver.  The pool
> looks like this:
>
>   # zpool status
>     pool: space
>    state: ONLINE
>    scrub: none requested
>   config:
>   
>           NAME                                     STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
>           space                                    ONLINE       0     0     0
>             c4t60A98000433469764E4A413571444B63d0  ONLINE       0     0     0
>             c4t60A98000433469764E4A41357149432Fd0  ONLINE       0     0     0
>   
>   errors: No known data errors
>
> The /kernel/drv/scsi_vhci.conf file, unchanged from the defaut, specifies:
>
>     load-balance="round-robin";
>
> Indeed, when I generate I/O on a ZFS filesystem, I see TCP traffic with
> `snoop' on both of the Iscsi ethernet interfaces.  It certainly appears
> to be doing round-robin.  The I/O are going to the same disk devices,
> of course, but by two different paths.  Is this a correct configuration
> for ZFS?  I assume it's safe, but I thought I should check.
>
>   

-- 


-     _____/     _____/      /           - Jonathan Loran -           -
-    /          /           /                IT Manager               -
-  _____  /   _____  /     /     Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley
-        /          /     /      (510) 643-5146 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- ______/    ______/    ______/           AST:7731^29u18e3
                                 


_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Reply via email to