Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

udev-rules: set ctrl_loss_tmo to -1 for ONTAP NVMe/TCP #2071

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

martin-gpy
Copy link
Contributor

Setting ctrl_loss_tmo to -1 for ONTAP NVMe/TCP controllers would enable indefinite reconnect attempts during a path loss and help avoid purging the path on the host, which otherwise may lead to mounted fs read-only behavior. So add a rule towards enabling the same.

Setting ctrl_loss_tmo to -1 for ONTAP NVMe/TCP controllers
would enable indefinite reconnect attempts during a path loss
and help avoid purging the path on the host, which otherwise
may lead to mounted fs read-only behavior. So add a rule towards
enabling the same.

Signed-off-by: Martin George <[email protected]>
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@
# Enable round-robin for NetApp ONTAP and NetApp E-Series
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="nvme-subsystem", ATTR{subsystype}=="nvm", ATTR{model}=="NetApp ONTAP Controller", ATTR{iopolicy}="round-robin"
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="nvme-subsystem", ATTR{subsystype}=="nvm", ATTR{model}=="NetApp E-Series", ATTR{iopolicy}="round-robin"

# Set ctrl_loss_tmo to -1 for NetApp ONTAP NVMe/TCP
ACTION=="add|change", SUBSYSTEM=="nvme", KERNEL=="nvme*", ATTR{transport}=="tcp", ATTR{model}=="NetApp ONTAP Controller", ATTR{ctrl_loss_tmo}="-1"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIRC, the recommended ACTION match is to use ACTION!=remove instead.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. Will make that change.

@martin-gpy martin-gpy closed this Oct 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants