[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux Cluster using shared scsi

A question on clarification.

Is the configuration you are testing have both FC adapters going to the same
port of the storage device (mutli-path) or to different ports of the storage
device (mulit-port)?

The reason I ask is that I thought if you are using SCSI-2 reserves that the
reserve was on a per initiator basis. How does one know which path has the

On a side note. I thought the GFS project had up leveled there locking / fencing
into a API called a locking harness to support different kinds of fencing
methods. Any thoughts if this capability could be plugged into this service so
that users could reduce recoding depending on which fencing support they



Doug Ledford [] wrote:
> To:
> cc: James Bottomley <>, "Roets, Chris"
> <>,,
> "Eric Z. Ayers" wrote:
> >
> > Doug Ledford writes:
> > (James Bottomley commented about the need for SCSI reservation kernel
> patches)
> > >
> > > I agree. It's something that needs fixed in general, your software
> needs it
> > > as well, and I've written (about 80% done at this point) some open
> source
> > > software geared towards getting/holding reservations that also
> requires the
> > > same kernel patches (plus one more to be fully functional, an ioctl to
> allow a
> > > SCSI reservation to do a forced reboot of a machine). I'll be
> releasing that
> > > package in the short term (once I get back from my vacation anyway).
> > >
> >
> > Hello Doug,
> >
> > Does this package also tell the kernel to "re-establish" a
> > reservation for all devices after a bus reset, or at least inform a
> > user level program? Finding out when there has been a bus reset has
> > been a stumbling block for me.
> It doesn't have to. The kernel changes are minimal (basically James' SCSI
> reset patch that he's been carrying around, the scsi reservation conflict
> patch, and I need to write a third patch that makes the system optionally
> reboot immediately on a reservation conflict and which is controlled by an
> ioctl, but I haven't done that patch yet). All of the rest is implemented
> in
> user space via the /dev/sg entries. As such, it doesn't have any more
> information about bus resets than you do. However, because of the policy
> enacted in the code, it doesn't need to. Furthermore, because there are so
> many ways to loose a reservation silently, it's foolhardy to try and keep
> reservation consistency any way other than something similar to what I
> outline
> below.
> The package is meant to be a sort of "scsi reservation" library. The
> application that uses the library is responsible for setting policy. I
> wrote
> a small, simple application that actually does a decent job of implementing
> policy on the system. The policy it does implement is simple:
> If told to get a reservation, then attempt to get it. If the attempt is
> blocked by an existing reservation and we aren't suppossed to reset the
> drive,
> then exit. If it's blocked and we are suppossed to reset the drive, then
> send
> a device reset, then wait 5 seconds, then try to get the reservation. If
> we
> again fail, then the other machine is still alive (as proven by the fact
> that
> it re-established its reservation after the reset) and we exit, else we now
> have the reservation.
> If told to forcefully get a reservation, then attempt to get it. If the
> attempt fails, then reset the device and try again immediately (no 5 second
> wait), if it fails again, then exit.
> If told to hold a reservation, then resend your reservation request once
> every
> 2 seconds (this actually has very minimal CPU/BUS usage and isn't as big a
> deal as requesting a reservation every 2 seconds might sound). The first
> time
> the reservation is refused, consider the reservation stolen by another
> machine
> and exit (or optionally, reboot).
> The package is meant to lock against itself (in other words, a malicious
> user
> with write access to the /dev/sg entries could confuse this locking
> mechanism,
> but it will work cooperatively with other copies of itself running on other
> machines), the requirements for the locking to be safe are as follows:
> 1) A machine is not allowed to mount or otherwise use a drive in any way
> shape or form until it has successfully acquired a reservation.
> 2) Once a machine has a reservation, it is not allowed to ever take any
> action to break another machines reservation, so that if the reservation is
> stolen, this machine is required to "gracefully" step away from the drive
> (rebooting is the best way to accomplish this since even the act of
> unmounting
> the drive will attempt to write to it).
> 3) The timeouts in the program must be honored (resend your reservation,
> when
> you hold it, every 2 seconds so that a passive attempt to steal the
> reservation will see you are still alive within the 5 second timeout and
> leave
> you be, which is a sort of heartbeat in and of itself).
> Anyway, as I said in my previous email, it's about 80% complete. It
> currently
> is up and running on SCSI-2 LUN based reservations. There is code to do
> SCSI-2 and SCSI-3 extent based reservations but it hasn't been tested due
> to
> lack of devices that support extent based reservations (my test bed is a
> multipath FC setup, so I'm doing all my testing on FC drives over two FC
> controllers in the same machine). I've still got to add the SCSI-3
> Persistent
> Reservation code to the library (again, I'm lacking test drives for this
> scenario). The library itself requires that the program treat all
> reservations as extent/persistent reservations and it silently falls back
> to
> LUN reservations when neither of those two are available. My simple
> program
> that goes with the application just makes extent reservations of the whole
> disc, so it acts like a LUN reservation regardless, but there is
> considerably
> more flexibility in the library if a person wishes to program to it.
> --
> Doug Ledford <>
> Please check my web site for aic7xxx updates/answers before
> e-mailing me about problems
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to

Michael Anderson

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.113 / U:4.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site