iSCSI disconnects dilema
wb at freebie.xs4all.nl
Fri Jan 12 20:14:12 UTC 2007
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:31:04PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote..
> > --s/l3CgOIzMHHjg/5
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:06:46AM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > While I think I have almost solved the problem of network disconnects,
> > > It downed on me a major problem:
> > > When a 'local' disk crashes, the kernel will probably hang/panic/crash.
> > > if i don't try to recover, then there is no change in the above scenario.
> > > if i try to recover, then the client does not know that it should
> > > umount/fsck/mount.
> > > While all this seems familiar, removing a floppy/disk-on-key while it's
> > > mounted, we could always say "you shouldn't have done that!", with
> > > a network connection, it can happen very often - rebooting the target, a
> > > network hickup, etc.
> > >=20
> > > So, any ideas?
> > In my opinion it should be done this way:
> > You have a queue of I/O requests. You send the to the other end and wait
> > for confirmation. Until confirmation is received, you keep the requests
> > queued. If the other end dies, you try to reconnect (until some timeout
> > expires, the processes which send those requests will just wait), if you
> > reconnect successfully, you resend not-confirmed requests, if you won't
> > be able to reconnect, you just pass the errors up.
> > This is what I did in ggate and it seems to work.
> That is basically what i'm doing - unacked request get requed.
> the problem I fear (and maybe I'm paranoid :-):
Paranoia is a Good Thing(TM) in data storage land :-)
> assume the following scenario, the client(initiator) sends a write command,
> the target acks it, then it crashes, if the write was never completed,
> the initiator goes on as nothing ever happened.
Yes, but what can the initiator do about that? I mean, it does not have any
visibility of what the target has (or has not) done with the data. '
This is roughly the same as a RAID box accepting a write into a writeback cache
and ACK-ing to the host. You can only assume that the RAID box' cache
will get flushed to the spindles properly. All the usual horror scenarios
with a broken battery backup of the cache and a powerfailure etc apply here.
Wilko Bulte wilko at FreeBSD.org
More information about the freebsd-hackers