Takahiro Yasui [tyasui@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > Hi Malahal, > > my patch doesn't handle transient error now. I expect log devices > to be failed and got in a blockage status once an error has happened. > > > With our user level only implementation, the log device handling would > > be as good as the real mirror *leg* handling. We get all the benefits of > > the mirror without doing any code! Wouldn't it be nice? > > I agree that simple implementation is better, but log could be handled > without any additional layer, and also I'm thinking that log could be > handled in the simpler way. > > Lower layer, such as SCSI, also has retry feature based on error type > and will be done in the proper way. Do you mean that it isn't enough > and should dm-layer handle errors for log device, too? Not really. What I meant is re-integrating a failed log device when it comes back again. That is also what I mean by handling 'transient errors'. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
