Merit and demerits for various Linux fiberchannel multipath options

Posted by wzzrd on Server Fault See other posts from Server Fault or by wzzrd
Published on 2009-06-13T08:21:28Z Indexed on 2010/04/14 20:54 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 499

Filed under:
|
|

On our Linux servers, we currently use HPs qla2xxx drivers, because it has multipathing (active/passive) built in.

The are, however, various other options, like Red Hats device-mapper-multipath with the stock qla2xxx drivers (multibus and failover) and things like SecurePath and PowerPath (both of which can do trunking, iirc).

Can someone tell me what the merits and demerits of the various options are (if I can ask such a question), besides the obvious fact that the {Secure,Power}Path options cost vast amounts of money? I'm mainly interested in the freely available options, like HPs qla2xxx vs. Red Hats multipathd and possible other open source solutions, but I would like to hear good reasons to go for the commercial solutions too.

UPDATE: I'll be benchmarking various options the coming few days (the average of 10 runs of iozone for each option (options being native qla2xxx failver, native qla2xxx multibus, HP qla2xxx failover)). I'll post a summary of results here for those interested.

© Server Fault or respective owner

Related posts about linux

Related posts about fibre-channel