Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 03/15/2018 02:32 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Mike Christie > wrote: > > ... > > It looks like there is a bug. > > 1. A regression was added when I stopped killing the iscsi connection > when

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Mike Christie wrote: > ... > > It looks like there is a bug. > > 1. A regression was added when I stopped killing the iscsi connection > when the lock is taken away from us to handle a failback bug where it > was causing ping ponging. That

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 03/14/2018 04:28 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Michael Christie > wrote: > > On 03/14/2018 01:27 PM, Michael Christie wrote: > > On 03/14/2018 01:24 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: > >> On Wed,

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Michael Christie wrote: > On 03/14/2018 01:27 PM, Michael Christie wrote: >> > On 03/14/2018 01:24 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jason Dillaman > >> >

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Michael Christie wrote: > On 03/14/2018 01:27 PM, Michael Christie wrote: > > On 03/14/2018 01:24 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jason Dillaman >> > wrote:

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 03/14/2018 01:27 PM, Michael Christie wrote: > On 03/14/2018 01:24 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jason Dillaman > > wrote: >> >> Maxim, can you provide steps for a reproducer? >> >> >> Yes, but it involves

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Michael Christie wrote: > > > ... > > Ignore all these questions. I'm pretty sure I know the issue. > > Fine, but can you please also elaborate on: > For this case it would be tcmu_rbd_handle_blacklisted_cmd How does it tell kernel to

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 03/14/2018 01:26 PM, Michael Christie wrote: > On 03/14/2018 01:06 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Mike Christie > > wrote: >> >> On 03/11/2018 08:54 AM, shadow_lin wrote: >> > Hi Jason, >> > How the old

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 03/14/2018 01:24 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jason Dillaman > wrote: > > Maxim, can you provide steps for a reproducer? > > > Yes, but it involves adding two artificial delays: one in tcmu-runner > and

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 03/14/2018 01:06 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Mike Christie > wrote: > > On 03/11/2018 08:54 AM, shadow_lin wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > How the old target gateway is blacklisted? Is it a feature of the

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jason Dillaman wrote: > Maxim, can you provide steps for a reproducer? > Yes, but it involves adding two artificial delays: one in tcmu-runner and another in kernel iscsi. If you're willing to take pains of recompiling kernel and

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

Maxim, can you provide steps for a reproducer? On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Mike Christie wrote: >> >> On 03/11/2018 08:54 AM, shadow_lin wrote: >> > Hi Jason, >> > How the old target gateway

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > On 03/11/2018 08:54 AM, shadow_lin wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > How the old target gateway is blacklisted? Is it a feature of the target > > gateway(which can support active/passive multipath) should provide or is > > it

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Maged Mokhtar wrote: > On 2018-03-12 21:00, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:41 PM, Maged Mokhtar wrote: > > On 2018-03-12 14:23, David Disseldorp wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:23:02 +0200, Maged

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 2018-03-12 21:00, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:41 PM, Maged Mokhtar wrote: > >> On 2018-03-12 14:23, David Disseldorp wrote: >> >> On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:23:02 +0200, Maged Mokhtar wrote: >> >> 2)I undertand that before switching the path, the

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:41 PM, Maged Mokhtar wrote: > On 2018-03-12 14:23, David Disseldorp wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:23:02 +0200, Maged Mokhtar wrote: > > 2)I undertand that before switching the path, the initiator will send a > TMF ABORT can we pass this to down

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

Hi Maged, On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:41:22 +0200, Maged Mokhtar wrote: > I was thinking we would get the block request then loop down to all its > osd requests and cancel those using the same osd request cancel > function. Until we can be certain of termination, I don't think it makes sense to

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 2018-03-12 14:23, David Disseldorp wrote: > On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:23:02 +0200, Maged Mokhtar wrote: > >> 2)I undertand that before switching the path, the initiator will send a >> TMF ABORT can we pass this to down to the same abort_request() function >> in osd_client that is used for

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:23:02 +0200, Maged Mokhtar wrote: > 2)I undertand that before switching the path, the initiator will send a > TMF ABORT can we pass this to down to the same abort_request() function > in osd_client that is used for osd_request_timeout expiry ? IIUC, the existing

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

--- > shadowlin > > > > *发件人：*Jason Dillaman <jdill...@redhat.com> > *发送时间：*2018-03-11 07:46 > *主题：*Re: Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD > Exclusive Lock > *收件人：*"shadow_lin"<shadow_...@163.com> >

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

- it's blacklisted so it cannot talk to the cluster. > >> PS: >> Petasan say they can do active/active iscsi with patched suse kernel. > > I'll let them comment on these corner cases. > >> 2018-03-10 >> >> shadowlin >> >&

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

the lock later when the lock is released. 2018-03-11 shadowlin 发件人：Jason Dillaman <jdill...@redhat.com> 发送时间：2018-03-11 07:46 主题：Re: Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock 收件人："shadow_lin"<shadow_...@163.com> 抄送："Mike Christie"

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

ching krbd/tcmu. /Maged 2018-03-10 shadowlin ____ 发件人：Jason Dillaman <jdill...@redhat.com> 发送时间：2018-03-10 21:40 主题：Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock 收件人："shadow_lin"<shadow_...@163.com> 抄送：&q

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

se kernel. I'll let them comment on these corner cases. > 2018-03-10 > > shadowlin > > ____ > > 发件人：Jason Dillaman <jdill...@redhat.com> > 发送时间：2018-03-10 21:40 > 主题：Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

and overwrite the new writes? PS: Petasan say they can do active/active iscsi with patched suse kernel. 2018-03-10 shadowlin 发件人：Jason Dillaman <jdill...@redhat.com> 发送时间：2018-03-10 21:40 主题：Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock 收件人："shadow_

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

to detect IOs from a failover situation. > 2018-03-10 > > shadowlin > > > > 发件人：Mike Christie <mchri...@redhat.com> > 发送时间：2018-03-09 00:54 > 主题：Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD E

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

active/active? What mechanism should be implement to avoid the problem with active/passive and active/active multipath? 2018-03-10 shadowlin 发件人：Mike Christie <mchri...@redhat.com> 发送时间：2018-03-09 00:54 主题：Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock 收件人："

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

tcmu's file_example handler which can be used with krbd so >> it works like the rbd one. >> >> I do know enough about SCST right now. >> >>> Is it safe to use active/active multipath If use suse kernel with >>> target_core_rbd? >>> Thanks. >>> &

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

not safe as is right now. We could > >>>> add some code tcmu's file_example handler which can be used with krbd > so > >>>> it works like the rbd one. > >>>> > >>>> I do know enough about SCST right now. > >>>> &g

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

re >>>> IO might get stuck in the target/block layer and get executed after new >>>> IO. So for lio, tgt and tcmu it is not safe as is right now. We could >>>> add some code tcmu's file_example handler which can be used with krbd so >>>> it works like the rbd one. >>>> >>>> I do know enoug

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

to use active/active multipath If use suse kernel with >>> > target_core_rbd? >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > 2018-03-07 >>> > >>> > >

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

gt;> IO might get stuck in the target/block layer and get executed after >>> new >>> IO. So for lio, tgt and tcmu it is not safe as is right now. We >>> could >>> add some code tcmu's file_example handler which can be used with >>> krbd so >>

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

e Christie <mchri...@redhat.com <mailto:mchri...@redhat.com>> > *发送时间：*2018-03-07 03:51 > *主题：*Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD > Exclusive Lock > *收件人：*"Lazuardi Nasution"<mrxlazuar...@gmail.com <m

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 03/08/2018 12:44 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > stuck/queued then your osd_request_timeout value might be too short. For Sorry, I meant too long. ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

gt; > > > 2018-03-07 > > > > > shadowlin > > > > > ---- > > > > *发件人：*Mike Christie <mchri...@redhat.com &g

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

t;> >>> I do know enough about SCST right now. >>> >>> >>> > Is it safe to use active/active multipath If use suse kernel with >>> > target_core_rbd? >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > 2018-03-07 >>> > >>> > -

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

th If use suse kernel with >> > target_core_rbd? >> > Thanks. >> > >> > 2018-03-07 >> > -------- >> > shadowlin >> > >> > --

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

kernel with >> > target_core_rbd? >> > Thanks. >> > >> > 2018-03-07 >> > >> > shadowlin >> > >> > ---- >> > >> > *发件人：*Mike Christie <mc

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

-03-07 > > > > shadowlin > > > > ---- > > > > *发件人：*Mike Christie <mchri...@redhat.com> > > *发送时间：*2018-03-

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

t; *发送时间：*2018-03-07 03:51 > *主题：*Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD > Exclusive Lock > *收件人：*"Lazuardi Nasution"<mrxlazuar...@gmail.com>,"Ceph > Users"<ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> > *抄送：* > > On

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

Hi David, Thanks for the info. Could I assume that if use active/passive multipath with rbd exclusive lock then all targets which support rbd(via block) are safe? 2018-03-08 shadow_lin 发件人：David Disseldorp <dd...@suse.de> 发送时间：2018-03-08 08:47 主题：Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

Hi shadowlin, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 23:24:42 +0800, shadow_lin wrote: > Is it safe to use active/active multipath If use suse kernel with > target_core_rbd? > Thanks. A cross-gateway failover race-condition similar to what Mike described is currently possible with active/active target_core_rbd.

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

主题：Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock 收件人："Lazuardi Nasution"<mrxlazuar...@gmail.com>,"Ceph Users"<ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> 抄送： On 03/06/2018 01:17 PM, Lazuardi Nasution wrote: > Hi, > > I want to do load balance

Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

On 03/06/2018 01:17 PM, Lazuardi Nasution wrote: > Hi, > > I want to do load balanced multipathing (multiple iSCSI gateway/exporter > nodes) of iSCSI backed with RBD images. Should I disable exclusive lock > feature? What if I don't disable that feature? I'm using TGT (manual > way) since I get

[ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock

Hi, I want to do load balanced multipathing (multiple iSCSI gateway/exporter nodes) of iSCSI backed with RBD images. Should I disable exclusive lock feature? What if I don't disable that feature? I'm using TGT (manual way) since I get so many CPU stuck error messages when I was using LIO. Best