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 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

tcmu-runner, the lock is already reacquired and it goes to OSD smoothly overwriting newer data. > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Maxim Patlasov <mpatla...@skytap.com> > wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Mike Christie <mchri...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >

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

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Michael Christie <mchri...@redhat.com> 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 <jdill...@redhat.com

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

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Michael Christie <mchri...@redhat.com> 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 <jdill...@redhat.com > >>

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