Hi David, Thanks for the info. Could I assume that if use active/passive multipath with rbd exclusive lock then all targets which support rbd(via block) are safe? 2018-03-08
shadow_lin 发件人:David Disseldorp <dd...@suse.de> 发送时间:2018-03-08 08:47 主题:Re: [ceph-users] iSCSI Multipath (Load Balancing) vs RBD Exclusive Lock 收件人:"shadow_lin"<shadow_...@163.com> 抄送:"Mike Christie"<mchri...@redhat.com>,"Lazuardi Nasution"<mrxlazuar...@gmail.com>,"Ceph Users"<ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> Hi shadowlin, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 23:24:42 +0800, shadow_lin wrote: > Is it safe to use active/active multipath If use suse kernel with > target_core_rbd? > Thanks. A cross-gateway failover race-condition similar to what Mike described is currently possible with active/active target_core_rbd. It's a corner case that is dependent on a client assuming that unacknowledged I/O has been implicitly terminated and can be resumed via an alternate path, while the original gateway at the same time issues the original request such that it reaches the Ceph cluster after differing I/O to the same region via the alternate path. It's not something that we've observed in the wild, but is nevertheless a bug that is being worked on, with a resolution that should also be usable for active/active tcmu-runner. Cheers, David
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com