Re: tcm_node difficulties when used with pacemaker cluster, and suggested patches.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Steve,

Thanks for your kind words and very interesting email.

I will take a closer look (read test) your patches as soon as I can, and if they solve what you mentionned without ill effects, will push them upstream. It is true that lio-utils is now deprecated, in the sense that new developments should not use it, but you are right in saying that it is still out there. As a consequence it should receive bugfixes when possible. We are even discussing with the debian folks if we should keep it around even after we start shipping 3.x, to provide support for legacy installs.

Regarding your use-case, for having deployed myself countless DRBD+pacemaker iSCSI clusters in the wild, I understand the pain.

As you guessed, I would prefer people to use something else than lio-utils for that, especially now that the 3.x series with the config API is out.

With 2.x, what I tend to do in my own installs is to write ad-hoc RA scripts in python, with minimal parametrization, using the rtslib API, but also doing stuff like reloading PR metadata and such. Again, these are very ad-hoc, I never got around to writing a generic RA that I could publish.

However, with 3.x and the config API, I guess this is something I should look into. What I have in mind is something very simple and robust, leveraging the config API: instead of passing all the target configuration to the RA, simply point it to a configuration snippet that would be loaded on start and unloaded on stop, without touching the rest of the running configuration (as long as there are no name/WWN clashes between target objects for two separate resources).

As someone who got his hands dirty doing some pacemaker clusters, what do you think of this approach? Would you adopt it? Of course, if syncing the config snippets across the cluster nodes is a pain, I guess one could just inline their contents as RA parameter. That would bloat the CIB a little more, but it should not be a problem, corosync has now taken over heartbeat and everyone should be able to sync large CIBs if needed.

As a side note, battling with OCF and wrong RA return codes is a pain I experienced oh-so-often that I feel bad that lio-utils did that to you ;-) Sorry!

Best Regards,
--
Jerome Martin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SCSI]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux