On Mon, 14 May 2018 06:27:00 -0700, Jason Dillaman wrote: > While I cannot speak for the upstream kernel maintainers, in the past > they have rejected the RBD module for LIO and you might have similar > issues wiring timestamp changes into tcp_recvmsg. Plus, in a large > deployment where you have lots of initiators connecting to lots of > targets, I really wonder what benefit you will receive from > active/active versus just level-loading the targets and not having to > deal w/ the added racy complexities. Thanks for the feedback, Jason. In this case, the PoC is RBD and OSD only; there's no LIO involvement. The idea is that if the changes are considered useful / non-intrusive for standalone kRBD then I'll proceed with something similar for librbd and tcmu-runner. Regarding active/active vs active/passive iSCSI architectures, aside from the benefits of faster client-driven failover and load balancing, I personally find the active/active iSCSI gw architecture less complex, compared to exclusive locking + ALUA state changes involved with active/passive :) Cheers, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
