Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Roger Heflin
Enterprise 8 seems to have the new -T option, so clearly the old option had limited use, and went away. I had to read the updates to make sure I was not missing anything in my understanding of that timeout.We override the vendors setting on a number of arrays (we use 87400 seconds, long

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Xose Vazquez Perez
On 12/3/22 01:02, Martin Wilck wrote: Funny, Ben never told me there was a conflicting option name in RHEL. I guess it's too late now, as I said, the upstream option has existed for 4 years. Because it was remove in RHEL-8, since multipath-tools were updated to 0.8.4 RHEL-7 uses a very old

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 18:00 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote: > One of the Enterprise 7 variants, Claims "0.4.9" multipath but > appears to have a number of recent features backported, so some > frankensteined version. > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:50 PM Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Roger Heflin
One of the Enterprise 7 variants, Claims "0.4.9" multipath but appears to have a number of recent features backported, so some frankensteined version. On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:50 PM Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:44 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote: > > Thanks. > > > > The older

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Xose Vazquez Perez
On 12/3/22 00:50, Martin Wilck wrote: On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:44 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote: Thanks. The older distribution I checked has this for -T      -T tm:valid               check if tm matches the multipathd configuration timestamp value from /run/multipathd/timestamp If so, return

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:44 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote: > Thanks. > > The older distribution I checked has this for -T >      -T tm:valid >               check if tm matches the multipathd configuration > timestamp value from /run/multipathd/timestamp If so, return success > if valid is 1.

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Roger Heflin
Thanks. The older distribution I checked has this for -T -T tm:valid check if tm matches the multipathd configuration timestamp value from /run/multipathd/timestamp If so, return success if valid is 1. Otherwise, return failure. If the timestamp doesn't match continue with

[dm-devel] [PATCH v2] libmultipath: is_path_valid(): check if device is in use

2022-12-02 Thread mwilck
From: Martin Wilck To check whether we will be able to add a given device can be part of a multipath map, we have two tests in check_path_valid(): released_to_systemd() and the O_EXCL test. The former isn't helpful if "multipath -u" is called for the first time for a given device, and the latter

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 14:48 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote: > Reading through it, on the line below, shouldn't it be -t (not -T)? > No, -T is correct. -t prints the entire internal table, most of which doesn't apply on any given system. -T prints only the settings for hardware that's present in the

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Roger Heflin
Reading through it, on the line below, shouldn't it be -t (not -T)? Line: +the multipath-tools built-in settings override the default. Run \fImultipath -T\fR On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:58 AM Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 18:57 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH] libmultipath: is_path_valid(): check if device is in use

2022-12-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 21:40 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > > > +   pthread_cleanup_push_cast(free_scandir_result, ); > > > + > > > +   /* parts[0] is the whole disk */ > > > +   if (vector_alloc_slot(parts) && > > > +   (prop = strdup(strrchr(path, '/') + 1)) != NULL) > > >

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 18:57 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 18:31 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > > On 12/1/22 11:32, mwi...@suse.com wrote: > > > > > From: Martin Wilck > > > > > > The statement that the default is 600 is wrong in most cases. > > > Improve the description

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 18:31 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > On 12/1/22 11:32, mwi...@suse.com wrote: > > > From: Martin Wilck > > > > The statement that the default is 600 is wrong in most cases. > > Improve the description of the default and the dependency of this > > parameter on other

[dm-devel] [PATCH v2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Xose Vazquez Perez
From: Martin Wilck The statement that the default is 600 is wrong in most cases. Improve the description of the default and the dependency of this parameter on other parameters. Cc: Martin Wilck Cc: Benjamin Marzinski Cc: Christophe Varoqui Cc: DM-DEVEL ML Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipath.conf(5): improve documentation of dev_loss_tmo

2022-12-02 Thread Xose Vazquez Perez
On 12/1/22 11:32, mwi...@suse.com wrote: From: Martin Wilck The statement that the default is 600 is wrong in most cases. Improve the description of the default and the dependency of this parameter on other parameters. I did change this patch to move "default value" to bottom. -- dm-devel