On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 18:38 -0400, Mike Christie wrote: > On 07/16/2012 04:28 PM, David Dillow wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 18:07 -0400, Mike Christie wrote: > >> For the ping code, does it use TUR because there is not a transport way > >> to test the path/port/transport/interconnect? > > > > Yes, SRP does not have a way to test connectivity on a transport level > > ala iSCSI NOPs. I'm not at all inclined to add the ping functionality to > > the SRP initiator, as I see it as duplicative of the existing multipathd > > functionality in userspace, and it can kill the entire nexus even if > > only one LUN is having issues. > > > > I am not in favor of a tur in the transport class too. > > What about when multipath is not used or are you saying we should use it > for srp even when there is only one path (for iscsi we have told people > to do something like this if they want mpaths queue_if_no_path behavior). If they want to quickly detect and fail idle paths, then perhaps. Otherwise, the loss of the connection will only be noticed on the next command. We can also get notifications from the fabric when a device leaves, so we can use that to start the dev_loss_tmo and prune the stale connections. -- Dave Dillow National Center for Computational Science Oak Ridge National Laboratory (865) 241-6602 office -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
