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

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] dm mpath: attach scsi_dh during table resume



On Fri, Apr 26 2013 at  2:05am -0400,
Hannes Reinecke <hare suse de> wrote:

> On 04/25/2013 05:31 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25 2013 at 10:50am -0400,
> > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com> wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 25 2013 at  9:48am -0400,
> >>> Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The need to support changing device handlers (via multipath table load)
> >>> is overblown/historic.
> >>
> >> So - do you mean that we make "retain_attached_hw_handler" the default 
> >> option and don't allow the user to change existing device handler in 
> >> multipath configuration?
> >>
> >> That's what my patch did and it was NACKed by Hannes. The problem there is 
> >> that behavior depends on module loading order - if you activate multipath 
> >> with "EMC" option, it activates the EMC handler. If you load the ALUA 
> >> module and activate multipath with "EMC" option, it stays with the ALUA 
> >> handler.
> > 
> > .match allows for correct scsi_dh selection in the decision of alua vs
> > emc (alua has the tpgs bit set) -- but both scsi_dh modules must be
> > loaded.
> > 
> > If the incorrect handler is getting attached then it is either a bug in
> > the .match method (for the handler that should've been attached) or the
> > storage isn't configured how the user thought and they need to
> > adjust/reconfigure to have it be like they expected.
> > 
> > Either way we really _could_ impose not allowing the scsi_dh handler to
> > be changed (by multipath) -- which is why I Acked your patch.  There is
> > always the scsi_dh sysfs interface to allow the user to change the
> > scsi_dh (and possibly shoot themselves in the foot).
> > 
> Always providing there _is_ a correct way.
> For eg RDAC might run in ALUA mode, but this is by no means
> exclusively; the original 'rdac' mode will work there, too.

Just like the emc handler, rdac_match will prefer alua over rdac if tpgs
is set.

> Plus some vendors / admins might prefer for whatever reasons
> to continue to use the original mode.

So you're saying an admin should have the flexibility to use rdac if
they know better?  I don't disagree in principle but in practice
providing that flexibility comes at a cost (e.g. potential for
kernel crashes).

> So I don't think there is a 'correct' hardware handler.
> Only a preferred one. And the preference is set by the user,
> not the installation. Hence it would be a bad idea to
> disallow scsi_dh changes.

Disallowing scsi_dh changes is more about avoiding the potential for
crashes (which have been seen in testing).  As such I think there is
more risk of hitting a crash (very bad) than there is of an admin
_really_ wanting to prefer the proprietary handler (rdac) over the
standards based one (alua).

So I'm in favor of disallowing scsi_dh changes via multipath (until
if/when the potential for scsi_dh crashes is eliminated).  dm-multipath
really doesn't have a role in attaching a scsi_dh these days.  Disallowing
scsi_dh changes acknowledges that the underlying kernel support has
improved and that admins should take notice (and multipath-tools should
now default to 'retain_attached_hw_handler').


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