On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:03 AM, David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Are you asking from a PoC point of view or with an eye towards
upstreaming? krbd changes look reasonable in principle, but I don't
see how any of it is useful without LIO changes. Doesn't the whole
thing boil down to where you set the expiration time? AIUI if you do
it somewhere in rbd, it's too late.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
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
