What if we claim exclusively these passive paths from multipathd ? Regards, On ven, 2005-09-02 at 10:25 -0400, goggin, edward wrote: > Reposting since it didn't get much response initially and the issue came up > again > in yesterday's multipath conference call. > > > ______________________________________________ > > From: goggin, edward > > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 12:21 AM > > To: 'dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx' > > Subject: How to avoid lots of read ios to passive paths of > > active-passive storage devices? > > > > How sould device scanning utilities like blkid, pvscan, > > vgscan, and lvscan (others?) be made to avoid issuing > > a significant number of read ios to passive paths of > > active-passive storage devices? > > > > Possibly they could be changed to use device specific > > command interfaces like SCSI pass through ioctls to > > read the native device paths in order to avoid sending > > lots of ios down the passive paths to active-passive > > storage devices? > > > > This way they could parse the sense key, ASC, and ASCQ > > returned via the SG_IO interface, see values like > > "Not Ready, Manual Intervention Required" and avoid > > sending subsequent reads to the same path. > > > > Or should they be changed to scan the multipath devices > > if they exist instead of the path specific devices? > > > > While this isn't an issue now, it could become one later > > when/if linux hosts are configured with hundreds/thousands > > of passive paths. > > > > -- > > dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel -- christophe varoqui <christophe.varoqui@xxxxxxx>
