Ocfs2 users - Mar 2011 - Ocfs2-users Digest, Vol 87, Issue 12

>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:22:22 -0300
>From: S?rgio Surkamp <sergio at gruposinternet.com.br>
>
>One thing to consider when using Unbreakable and iSCSI storage. It
>seems that the multipathd on top of two iSCSI initiators "trick"
>doesn't work on newer kernels. We are using bounded interfaces and one
>initiator on top of the teamed device instead.

I am intrigued by this statement.  I use RHEL, not OEL, but as you 
know they are essentially cousins.

We have quite a widespread deployment of multipathd on top of 
initiator pairs.  Been doing this for years now, and many currently 
consider it a "best practice" way of setting up a SAN.  We also have 
other design considerations for which bonded interfaces are less desirable.

I would hate to run into a brick wall during a future kernel update 
because of some fundamental & recommended functionality no longer 
being available.  What "newer" kernels have managed to break this, 
and do you have any insight as to why?

Em Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:07:29 -0500
David Johle <djohle at industrialinfo.com> escreveu:
> 
> >Message: 3
> >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:22:22 -0300
> >From: S?rgio Surkamp <sergio at gruposinternet.com.br>
> >
> >One thing to consider when using Unbreakable and iSCSI storage. It
> >seems that the multipathd on top of two iSCSI initiators
"trick"
> >doesn't work on newer kernels. We are using bounded interfaces and
> >one initiator on top of the teamed device instead.
> 
> 
> I am intrigued by this statement.  I use RHEL, not OEL, but as you 
> know they are essentially cousins.
> 
> We have quite a widespread deployment of multipathd on top of 
> initiator pairs.  Been doing this for years now, and many currently 
> consider it a "best practice" way of setting up a SAN.  We also
have
> other design considerations for which bonded interfaces are less
> desirable.
> 
> I would hate to run into a brick wall during a future kernel update 
> because of some fundamental & recommended functionality no longer 
> being available.  What "newer" kernels have managed to break
this,
> and do you have any insight as to why?
> 
> 
Hi,

Sorry, but I don't known what breaks the "compatibility" or when
it
broke.

Regards,
-- 
  .:''''':.
.:'        `     S?rgio Surkamp | Gerente de Rede
::    ........   sergio at gruposinternet.com.br
`:.        .:'
  `:,   ,.:'     *Grupos Internet S.A.*
    `: :'        R. Lauro Linhares, 2123 Torre B - Sala 201
     : :         Trindade - Florian?polis - SC
     :.'
     ::          +55 48 3234-4109
     :
     '           http://www.gruposinternet.com.br