Bug 704890
Summary: | mdadm gets executed before multipath | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Raul Mahiques <rmahique> |
Component: | initscripts | Assignee: | initscripts Maintenance Team <initscripts-maint-list> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | qe-baseos-daemons |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 5.6 | CC: | bmr, cherguet, chorn, hmilz, notting |
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-03-27 13:12:00 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Raul Mahiques
2011-05-15 19:31:34 UTC
This is true, but attempting to support this opens up the Pandora's box of continually stacking different storage subsystems on top of each other in infinite combinations. (i.e., multipath -> raid -> lvm or multipath -> lvm -> raid, etc. And don't forget dmraid!) We're intending to fix this for RHEL 7 by supporting dependency-based device initialization that brings up devices properly based on the configuration, rather than just running commands in a defined order. But that's not backportable to RHEL 5 or 6. Bill, thanks for adding your comment. A question might be if a customer needs devices initialized and stacked differently from the default, and needs to modify rc.sysinit to get this done, will we support this? Bill, but wouldn't it make more sense to start multipath before mdraid? It was added for bug 480627, in order to support MD on raw iSCSI. I suppose in general it makes sense to be after multipath, but that's a behavior change. Not many chances to change the order mdadm<->multipath in RHEL5 and more I guess. Wondering on feasibility for RHEL6.. Unlikely we're not going to change the existing orders without changing the infrastructure to assemble disks on demand first (i.e., if we're going to fix it, we'll fix the whole hardcoded sequence problem.) Seems to be a dupe of bug 433762 (closed WONTFIX in 2008). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 433762 *** |