Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN froma SAN

2006-12-26 Thread Jason J. W. Williams

Hi Robert,

MPxIO had correctly moved the paths. More than one path to controller
A was OK, and one patch to controller A for each LUN was active when
controller B was rebooted.  I have a hunch that the array was at
fault, because it also rebooted a Windows server with LUNs only on
Controller A. In the case of the Windows server Engenios RDAC was
handling multipathing. Overall, not a big deal, I just wouldn't trust
the array to do a hitless commanded controller failover or firmware
upgrade.

-J

On 12/22/06, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hello Jason,

Friday, December 22, 2006, 5:55:38 PM, you wrote:

JJWW> Just for what its worth, when we rebooted a controller in our array
JJWW> (we pre-moved all the LUNs to the other controller), despite using
JJWW> MPXIO ZFS kernel panicked. Verified that all the LUNs were on the
JJWW> correct controller when this occurred. Its not clear why ZFS thought
JJWW> it lost a LUN but it did. We have done cable pulling using ZFS/MPXIO
JJWW> before and that works very well. It may well be array-related in our
JJWW> case, but I hate anyone to have a false sense of security.

Did you first check (with format for example) if LUNs were really
accessible? If MPxIO worked ok and at least one path is ok then ZFS
won't panic.

--
Best regards,
 Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://milek.blogspot.com



___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


RE: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN froma SAN

2006-12-22 Thread Tim Cook
More specifically, if you have the controllers in your array setup in an
active/passive setup, and they have a failover timeout of 30 seconds,
and the hba's have a failover timeout of 20 seconds, when it goes to
failover and cannot write to the disks... I'm sure *bad things* will
happen.  Again, I haven't tested this scenario, but I can only imagine
it's not something that can be/should be/is recovered from gracefully.

--Tim

-Original Message-
From: Robert Milkowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:18 PM
To: Jason J. W. Williams
Cc: Tim Cook; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; Shawn Joy
Subject: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: Difference between ZFS and UFS with
one LUN froma SAN

Hello Jason,

Friday, December 22, 2006, 5:55:38 PM, you wrote:

JJWW> Just for what its worth, when we rebooted a controller in our
array
JJWW> (we pre-moved all the LUNs to the other controller), despite using
JJWW> MPXIO ZFS kernel panicked. Verified that all the LUNs were on the
JJWW> correct controller when this occurred. Its not clear why ZFS
thought
JJWW> it lost a LUN but it did. We have done cable pulling using
ZFS/MPXIO
JJWW> before and that works very well. It may well be array-related in
our
JJWW> case, but I hate anyone to have a false sense of security.

Did you first check (with format for example) if LUNs were really
accessible? If MPxIO worked ok and at least one path is ok then ZFS
won't panic.

-- 
Best regards,
 Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://milek.blogspot.com

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN froma SAN

2006-12-22 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Jason,

Friday, December 22, 2006, 5:55:38 PM, you wrote:

JJWW> Just for what its worth, when we rebooted a controller in our array
JJWW> (we pre-moved all the LUNs to the other controller), despite using
JJWW> MPXIO ZFS kernel panicked. Verified that all the LUNs were on the
JJWW> correct controller when this occurred. Its not clear why ZFS thought
JJWW> it lost a LUN but it did. We have done cable pulling using ZFS/MPXIO
JJWW> before and that works very well. It may well be array-related in our
JJWW> case, but I hate anyone to have a false sense of security.

Did you first check (with format for example) if LUNs were really
accessible? If MPxIO worked ok and at least one path is ok then ZFS
won't panic.

-- 
Best regards,
 Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://milek.blogspot.com

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss