Hi, On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:34:53PM +0200, christophe varoqui wrote: > On jeu, 2005-06-09 at 20:15 +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 08:16:42PM +0200, christophe varoqui wrote: > > > Should we stabilize a 0.4.5 out of the git head > be aware I broke the StorageWorks failover model to satisfy the > expressed need to proactively fail paths in the DM when the checkers see > them going down. What does that mean for StorageWorks users? I'm currently setting up a StorageWorks EVA3000 from scratch based on FC4 final. Will I stumble into any pitfalls, or would that only affect gits users? Thanks! > StorageWorks hardware relied on the daemon to keep the paths in failover > path groups to be in active state. That is no longer the case, now that > we keep the DM path state in sync with checker states. > > I guess to correct way to get back to a working model is to implement > the DM path activation in a hardware handler. Dave Olien and Mike > Christie have worked on such a handler. It needs debuging and testing. > > Regards, -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpOFWMLmD76V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
