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

Re: [dm-devel] StorageWorks failover model (was: tools target for SLES9 SP2 and RHEL4 U2)



On dim, 2005-06-12 at 14:21 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:34:53PM +0200, christophe varoqui wrote:
> > On jeu, 2005-06-09 at 20:15 +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 08:16:42PM +0200, christophe varoqui wrote:
> > > > Should we stabilize a 0.4.5 out of the git head
> > be aware I broke the StorageWorks failover model to satisfy the
> > expressed need to proactively fail paths in the DM when the checkers see
> > them going down.
> 
> What does that mean for StorageWorks users? I'm currently setting up a
> StorageWorks EVA3000 from scratch based on FC4 final. Will I stumble
> into any pitfalls, or would that only affect gits users?
> 
0.4.4 should be ok. I don't know what FC packagers did though.

Also be aware you'll be best served using the failover policy for now :
there is a 20% performance impact with multi-path per PG.

Regards,
-- 
christophe varoqui <christophe varoqui free fr>



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