[dm-devel] RE: dm-devel Digest, Vol 18, Issue 2

[Christopher Weis]

On 8/2/05, christophe varoqui <christophe.varoqui at free.fr> wrote:
> 
> On mar, 2005-08-02 at 15:07 -0400, goggin, edward wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:37:14 -0500
> > "Christopher C. Weis" <ccweis at gmail.com> wrote
> >
> > > I have a multipath SAN environment with storage controllers that are
> > > active/active. However, the controllers are not active/active at the
> > > LUN-level without a performance penalty, meaning if two
> > > servers want to
> > > see the same LUN (as in a clustered filesystem environment), they both
> > > need to be using the same controller. I'm trying to figure
> > > out a way to
> > > statically "order" the paths so that I can copy a config to all of the
> > > nodes using the CFS.
> > >
> > > >From what I've read, in a single-server environment with controllers
> > > such as the ones I'm dealing with, the path_grouping_policy should be
> > > set to "group_by_serial", which should work fine, but in a clustered
> > > environment, I need to be sure that the path ordering is the same.
> > >
> > > Are there any path_selectors, other than round-robin, that might
> > > accomplish this? Any other ideas?
> > >
> >
> > One was is to configure each multipath to have two groups with one group
> > having a higher priority than the other based on whether the path 
> accesses
> > the fast path controller. The assignment of the highest priority path 
> group
> > is non deterministic when using the "group_by_serial" path grouping 
> policy.
> >
> > Seems like you want to use the "group_by_priority" path grouping policy 
> and
> > create and get_priority executable which when invoked will return a 1 
> for
> > fast path and 0 for slow path. See the code for mpath_prio_emc, the
> > get_priority executable for the EMC CLARiiON array in
> > multipath-tools/path_priority/pp_emc/pp_emc.c.
> >
> Yes, also note "group_by_priority" path grouping policy may be overkill
> for the context. PG produced by "group_by_serial" can be sorted with an
> adequate prioritizer too.
> 
> 
> 
Does this mean that "group_by_serial" utilizes a "default_prio_callout" 
program/script as well, or is there another callout (or something totally 
different that I'm missing)?

Thx.

~Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/attachments/20050802/f5ba38ee/attachment.htm>