On 2004-11-02T23:50:13, christophe varoqui <christophe.varoqui@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But they are not failed! *whine* They'd be useable again if we sent them
> > a initialization command, very likely.
> >
> > And this is what we'd have to do if we didn't have an healthy paths left
> > in the other PG(s). But which we couldn't if we had failed them.
> >
> "unit not ready" is failed (F-path-state) from the device-mapper point
> of view, as far as I can see.
It's not (or at least not going to stay that way). If you look at the
recent patch sets, some logic for parsing the error codes received from
the lower layers is already in place.
(It's just that the patch to actually propagate up those error codes
from the block layer is still sitting in axboe's queue, but it'll appear
soonish I hope. ;-)
If you have missed this intention (to differentiate between "path
failed" and "path inactive" at the d-m layer), this might explain why
this discussion is still going on - sorry for not being more clear about
this right away.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business
