Hello Fred,
Your feedback is very useful, but please note that in my e-mail I used
the phrase "transport layer" to refer to the code in the Linux kernel in
which the fast_io_fail_tmo functionality has been implemented. The
following commit message from 10 years ago explains why the
fast_io_fail_tmo and dev_loss_tmo mechanisms have been implemented:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 0f29b966d60e9a4f5ecff9f3832257b38aea4f13
Author: James Smart <James.Smart@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Aug 18 17:33:29 2006 -0400
[SCSI] FC transport: Add dev_loss_tmo callbacks, and new fast_io_fail_tmo w/ callback
This patch adds the following functionality to the FC transport:
- dev_loss_tmo LLDD callback :
Called to essentially confirm the deletion of an rport. Thus, it is
called whenever the dev_loss_tmo fires, or when the rport is deleted
due to other circumstances (module unload, etc). It is expected that
the callback will initiate the termination of any outstanding i/o on
the rport.
- fast_io_fail_tmo and LLD callback:
There are some cases where it may take a long while to truly determine
device loss, but the system is in a multipathing configuration that if
the i/o was failed quickly (faster than dev_loss_tmo), it could be
redirected to a different path and completed sooner.
Many thanks to Mike Reed who cleaned up the initial RFC in support
of this post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bart.
On 04/28/2016 09:19 AM, Knight, Frederick wrote:
> There are multiple possible situations being intermixed in this discussion.
> First, I assume you're talking only about random access devices (if you try
> transport level error recover on a sequential access device - tape or SMR
> disk - there are lots of additional complexities).
>
> Failures can occur at multiple places:
> a) Transport layer failures that the transport layer is able to detect quickly;
> b) SCSI device layer failures that the transport layer never even knows about.
>
> For (a) there are two competing goals. If a port drops off the fabric and
> comes back again, should you be able to just recover and continue. But how
> long do you wait during that drop? Some devices use this technique to "move"
> a WWPN from one place to another. The port drops from the fabric, and a
> short time later, shows up again (the WWPN moves from one physical port to a
> different physical port). There are FC driver layer timers that define the
> length of time allowed for this operation. The goal is fast failover, but
> not too fast - because too fast will break this kind of "transparent failover".
> This timer also allows for the "OH crap, I pulled the wrong cable - put it
> back in; quick" kind of stupid user bug.
>
> For (b) the transport never has a failure. A LUN (or a group of LUNs)
> have an ALUA transition from one set of ports to a different set of ports.
> Some of the LUNs on the port continue to work just fine, but others enter
> ALUA TRANSITION state so they can "move" to a different part of the hardware.
> After the move completes, you now have different sets of optimized and
> non-optimized paths (or possible standby, or unavailable). The transport
> will never even know this happened. This kind of "failure" is handled by
> the SCSI layer drivers.
>
> There are other cases too, but these are the most common.
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsf-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lsf-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bart Van Assche
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:54 AM
> To: James Bottomley; Mike Snitzer
> Cc: linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; device-mapper development; linux-scsi
> Subject: Re: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM
>
> On 04/28/2016 08:40 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> Well, the entire room, that's vendors, users and implementors
>> complained that path failover takes far too long. I think in their
>> minds this is enough substance to go on.
>
> The only complaints I heard about path failover taking too long came
> from people working on FC drivers. Aren't SCSI transport layer
> implementations expected to fail I/O after fast_io_fail_tmo expired
> instead of waiting until the SCSI error handler has finished? If so, why
> is it considered an issue that error handling for the FC protocol can
> take very long (hours)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
