Reducing the SRP initiator failover time
Subsystems (2)
It is known that it takes about two to three minutes before the upstream SRP initiator fails over from a failed path to a working path. This is not only considered longer than acceptable but is also longer than other Linux SCSI initiators (e.g. iSCSI and FC). Progress so far with improving the fail-over SRP initiator has been slow. This is because the discussion about candidate patches occurred at two different levels: not only the patches itself were discussed but also the approach that should be followed. That last aspect is easier to discuss in a meeting than over a mailing list. Hence the proposal to discuss SRP initiator failover behavior during the LSF/MM summit. The topics that need further discussion are:
* If a path fails, remove the entire SCSI host or preserve the SCSI
host and only remove the SCSI devices associated with that host ?
* Which software component should test the state of a path and should
reconnect to an SRP target if a path is restored ? Should that be
done by the user space process srp_daemon or by the SRP initiator
kernel module ?
* How should the SRP initiator behave after a path failure has been
detected ? Should the behavior be similar to the FC initiator with
its fast_io_fail_tmo and dev_loss_tmo parameters ?
Dave, if this topic gets accepted, I really hope you will be able to attend the LSF/MM summit.
Bart.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Hi Bart,
thanks for approaching this! We're not the best mainline developers so I guess we won't be there. But we have the big SRP setups and our sysadmins really don't like reconnecting SRP hosts manually and putting their devices complicated to the related dm-multipath devices again.
Think about > 200 SRP devices per server (already filtered by initiator groups). We also consider the srptools as unmaintained, unreliable and slow. It is possible that the srptools commands don't return. Therefore, we send the SRP connection strings directly to the initiator within our mapping jobs.
It would also be great not to develop a DDoS attack reconnect like open-iscsi does. Rebooting the whole cluster to fix this isn't fun. There must be a possibility to configure different reconnect intervals.
Btw.: We even had the case that the IPoIB stuff reconnected but the RDMA part didn't with iSER. It was so broken then, that we couldn't disconnect or reconnect anymore - only chance hard reboot.
So you know our point of view and we already develop it that way for us. I'm looking forward what's the output of the discussion. At the current state it's difficult to nag our bosses to publish what we have so far.
Quoted 5 lines · Bart Van Assche
It is known that it takes about two to three minutes before the upstream SRP initiator fails over from a failed path to a working path. This is not only considered longer than acceptable but is also longer than other Linux SCSI initiators (e.g. iSCSI and FC). Progress so far with improving the fail-over SRP initiator has been slow. This is because the
Quoted 8 lines
discussion about candidate patches occurred at two different levels: not only the patches itself were discussed but also the approach that should be followed. That last aspect is easier to discuss in a meeting than over a mailing list. Hence the proposal to discuss SRP initiator failover behavior during the LSF/MM summit. The topics that need further discussion are:
* If a path fails, remove the entire SCSI host or preserve the SCSI host and only remove the SCSI devices associated with that host ?
Preserve SCSI hosts and SCSI devices unless they are removed explicitly by disconnect request. Rescanning SCSI devices with "- - -" like "iscsiadm -R" does for example may reorder the device names (sda becomes sdb, etc.).
Quoted 4 lines
* Which software component should test the state of a path and should reconnect to an SRP target if a path is restored ? Should that be done by the user space process
srp_daemonor by the SRP initiator kernel module ?
By the SRP kernel module. This is exactly the big advantage of SRP so
far: It is simple, it is RDMA and kernel only.
Quoted 3 lines
* How should the SRP initiator behave after a path failure has been detected ? Should the behavior be similar to the FC initiator with its
fast_io_fail_tmoanddev_loss_tmoparameters ?
Fine for us as long as it is possible to configure such times and the behavior at all. For dm-multipath we need fast IO failing and that the SRP initiator tries to automatically reconnect that path.
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAJZOPZJeCdkJ0xfK0kxic9jfz5A5ddw7TSWXe51yuO6bYTk4ag@mail.gmail.com
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): BB97625FCF082447AC2B11418FF02044A6E9E9C5-fViJhHBwANKuSA5JZHE7gA@public.gmane.org
Quoted 14 lines
It is known that it takes about two to three minutes before the upstream SRP initiator fails over from a failed path to a working path. This is not only considered longer than acceptable but is also longer than other Linux SCSI initiators (e.g. iSCSI and FC). Progress so far with improving the fail-over SRP initiator has been slow. This is because the discussion about candidate patches occurred at two different levels: not only the patches itself were discussed but also the approach that should be followed. That last aspect is easier to discuss in a meeting than over a mailing list. Hence the proposal to discuss SRP initiator failover behavior during the LSF/MM summit. The topics that need further discussion are:
* If a path fails, remove the entire SCSI host or preserve the SCSI
host and only remove the SCSI devices associated with that host ?
* Which software component should test the state of a path and should
reconnect to an SRP target if a path is restored ? Should that be
done by the user space processsrp_daemonor by the SRP initiator
kernel module ?
* How should the SRP initiator behave after a path failure has been
detected ? Should the behavior be similar to the FC initiator with
itsfast_io_fail_tmoanddev_loss_tmoparameters ?
Quoted 4 lines
Dave, if this topic gets accepted, I really hope you will be able to attend the LSF/MM summit.
Bart.
Hello Bart,
Thank you for taking the initiative.
Mellanox think that this should be discussed. We'd be happy to attend.
We also would like to discuss:
* How and how fast does SRP detect a path failure besides RC error?
* Role of srp_daemon, how often srp_daemon scan fabric for new/old targets, how-to scale srp_daemon discovery, traps.
-vu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 51142DE9.30900-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Quoted 20 lines · Vu Pham
Quoted 14 lines
It is known that it takes about two to three minutes before the upstream SRP initiator fails over from a failed path to a working path. This is not only considered longer than acceptable but is also longer than other Linux SCSI initiators (e.g. iSCSI and FC). Progress so far with improving the fail-over SRP initiator has been slow. This is because the discussion about candidate patches occurred at two different levels: not only the patches itself were discussed but also the approach that should be followed. That last aspect is easier to discuss in a meeting than over a mailing list. Hence the proposal to discuss SRP initiator failover behavior during the LSF/MM summit. The topics that need further discussion are:
* If a path fails, remove the entire SCSI host or preserve the SCSI
host and only remove the SCSI devices associated with that host ?
* Which software component should test the state of a path and should
reconnect to an SRP target if a path is restored ? Should that be
done by the user space processsrp_daemonor by the SRP initiator
kernel module ?
* How should the SRP initiator behave after a path failure has been
detected ? Should the behavior be similar to the FC initiator with
itsfast_io_fail_tmoanddev_loss_tmoparameters ?Quoted 4 lines
Dave, if this topic gets accepted, I really hope you will be able to attend the LSF/MM summit.
Bart.
Hello Bart,
Quoted 8 lines
Thank you for taking the initiative.
Mellanox think that this should be discussed. We'd be happy to attend.We also would like to discuss:
* How and how fast does SRP detect a path failure besides RC error?
* Role ofsrp_daemon, how oftensrp_daemonscan fabric for new/old targets, how-to scalesrp_daemondiscovery, traps.-vu
Hey Bart,
I agree with Vu that this issue should be discussed. We'd be happy to attend.
--
Sagi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 11 lines · Sagi Grimberg
Quoted 10 lines · Vu Pham
Hello Bart,
Thank you for taking the initiative.
Mellanox think that this should be discussed. We'd be happy to attend.We also would like to discuss:
* How and how fast does SRP detect a path failure besides RC error?
* Role ofsrp_daemon, how oftensrp_daemonscan fabric for new/old targets, how-to scalesrp_daemondiscovery, traps.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
-vu
Hey Bart,
I agree with Vu that this issue should be discussed. We'd be happy to attend.
Signature · 1 line
Sagi
Wow, also thanks to Mellanox for spending resources on SRP as well! Last year in June we came across a very different situation.
Cheers,
Sebastian and the ProfitBricks storage team