On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:04 AM, John A. Sullivan III <jsullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 15:57 -0700, Christopher Chen wrote: >> Hello, running Centos 5.2 here-- >> >> The multipathd daemon is very unhappy with any arbritrary script I >> provide for determining priorities. I see some fuzz in the syslog >> about ramfs and static binaries. >> >> How do I use shell scripts or arbitrary programs for multipathd? I >> compiled a simple program that spits out "1" and it seems to return >> appropriately. >> >> Also, why does multipath -ll return the appropriate data, namely >> prio=1 (when using my custom statically compiled callout) and >> multipath -l always returns prio=0? Is this an indication of a broken >> configuration or something else? >> >> Cheers >> >> cc >> > I had the exact same problem and someone kindly explained it on this > list so thanks to them. > > If I understand it correctly, multipathd must be prepared to function if > it loses access to disk. Therefore, it is designed to not read from > disk but caches everything it needs in memory. Apparently, it can only > cache binaries. > > To use a shell script, call it via the shell, i.e., rather than > shell.script call sh shell.script. > > That worked perfectly fine for me. However, I do not know if multipathd > actually caches shell.script or if it still must read it from disk when > invoking sh and hence remains vulnerable to loss of disk access. Does > anyone know? Thanks - John John: Thanks for the reply. I ended up writing a small C program to do the priority computation for me. I have two sets of FC-AL shelves attached to two dual-channel Qlogic cards. That gives me two paths to each disk. I have about 56 spindles in the current configuration, and am tying them together with md software raid. Now, even though each disk says it handles concurrent I/O on each port, my testing indicates that throughput suffers when using multibus by about 1/2 (from ~60 MB/sec sustained I/O with failover to 35 MB/sec when using multibus). However, with failover, I am effectively using only one channel on each card. With my custom priority callout, I more or less match the disks with even numbers to the even numbered scsi channels with a higher priority. Same with the odd numbered disks and odd numbered channels. The odds are 2ndary on even and vice versa. It seems to work rather well, and appears to spread the load nicely. Thanks again for your help! -- Chris Chen <muffaleta@xxxxxxxxx> "I want the kind of six pack you can't drink." -- Micah -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
