On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:08:13PM -0400, goggin, edward wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:07:40 +0200 > christophe varoqui <christophe.varoqui@xxxxxxx> wrote > > > Would printing the "PG-summed path priorities" value for each PG meet > > your needs/taste ? > > Yes. I assume that this would be the sum as recorded by multipathd and > the kernel's active path group would only reflect this under certain > conditions, (e.g., immediate failback is enabled). > > What about the idea of having device specific display options (and > device specific plug-ins to manage these) which while they are > multipathing relevant, they are not managed by multipath(8)? > Are you trying to stay away from this? > > I'm sure our CLARiiON customers would rather see that the multipath > display command using terminology which they are familiar with > already. > I'd rather favor consistency for users changing multipathing hardware, than for users changing OS but keeping the same multipathing hardware. I guess in the second case, the users already expects changes. Also I suspect multi-vendor SAN users will appreciate the consistency. Do you have strong feelings about this plugin idea ? Regards, cvaroqui
