Error detection/correction and fault detection/recovery – Data processing system error or fault handling – Reliability and availability
Reexamination Certificate
2000-03-30
2003-12-02
Beausoliel, Robert (Department: 2184)
Error detection/correction and fault detection/recovery
Data processing system error or fault handling
Reliability and availability
C714S015000, C714S020000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06658590
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to data consistency in data storage systems, and more specifically, to a system for providing controller-based transaction logging to provide data recovery after an error event in a remote data replication system using a Storage Area Network.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION AND PROBLEM
It is desirable to provide the ability for rapid recovery of user data from a disaster or significant error event at a data processing facility. This type of capability is often termed ‘disaster tolerance’ . In a data storage environment, disaster tolerance requirements include providing for replicated data and redundant storage to support recovery after the event. In order to provide a safe physical distance between the original data and the data to backed up, the data must be migrated from one storage subsystem or physical site to another subsystem or site. It is also desirable for user applications to continue to run while data replication proceeds in the background. Data warehousing, ‘continuous computing’, and Enterprise Applications all require remote copy capabilities.
Storage controllers are commonly utilized in computer systems to off-load from the host computer certain lower level processing functions relating to I/O operations, and to serve as interface between the host computer and the physical storage media. Given the critical role played by the storage controller with respect to computer system I/O performance, it is desirable to minimize the potential for interrupted I/O service due to storage controller malfunction. Thus, prior workers in the art have developed various system design approaches in an attempt to achieve some degree of fault tolerance in the storage control function. One such prior approach requires that all system functions be ‘mirrored’. While this type of approach is most effective in reducing interruption of I/O operations and lends itself to value-added fault isolation techniques, it has previously been costly to implement and heretofore has placed a heavy processing burden on the host computer.
One prior method of providing storage system fault tolerance accomplishes failover through the use of two controllers coupled in an active/passive configuration. During failover, the passive controller takes over for the active (failing) controller. A drawback to this type of dual configuration is that it cannot support load balancing, as only one controller is active and thus utilized at any given time, to increase overall system performance. Furthermore, the passive controller presents an inefficient use of system resources.
Another approach to storage controller fault tolerance is based on a process called ‘failover’. Failover is known in the art as a process by which a first storage controller, coupled to a second controller, assumes the responsibilities of the second controller when the second controller fails. ‘Failback’ is the reverse operation, wherein the second controller, having been either repaired or replaced, recovers control over its originally-attached storage devices. Since each controller is capable of accessing the storage devices attached to the other controller as a result of the failover, there is no need to store and maintain a duplicate copy of the data, i.e., one set stored on the first controller's attached devices and a second (redundant) copy on the second controller's devices.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,274,645 (Dec. 28, 1993), to Idleman et al. discloses a dual-active configuration of storage controllers capable of performing failover without the direct involvement of the host. However, the direction taken by Idleman requires a multi-level storage controller implementation. Each controller in the dual-redundant pair includes a two-level hierarchy of controllers. When the first level or host-interface controller of the first controller detects the failure of the second level or device interface controller of the second controller, it re-configures the data path such that the data is directed to the functioning second level controller of the second controller. In conjunction, a switching circuit re-configures the controller-device interconnections, thereby permitting the host to access the storage devices originally connected to the failed second level controller through the operating second level controller of the second controller. Thus, the presence of the first level controllers serves to isolate the host computer from the failover operation, but this isolation is obtained at added controller cost and complexity.
Other known failover techniques are based on proprietary buses. These techniques utilize existing host interconnect “hand-shaking” protocols, whereby the host and controller act in cooperative effort to effect a failover operation. Unfortunately, the “hooks” for this and other types of host-assisted failover mechanisms are not compatible with more recently developed, industry-standard interconnection protocols, such as SCSI, which were not developed with failover capability in mind. Consequently, support for dual-active failover in these proprietary bus techniques must be built into the host firmware via the host device drivers. Because SCSI, for example, is a popular industry standard interconnect, and there is a commercial need to support platforms not using proprietary buses, compatibility with industry standards such as SCSI is essential. Therefore, a vendor-unique device driver in the host is not a desirable option.
U.S. patent application, Ser. No. 08/071,710 to Sicola et al., describes a dual-active, redundant storage controller configuration in which each storage controller communicates directly with the host and its own attached devices, the access of which is shared with the other controller. Thus, a failover operation may be executed by one of the storage controller without the assistance of an intermediary controller and without the physical reconfiguration of the data path at the device interface.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,790,775 (Aug. 4, 1998) to Marks et al., discloses a system comprising a host CPU, a pair of storage controllers in a dual-active, redundant configuration. The pair of storage controllers reside on a common host side SCSI bus, which serves to couple each controller to the host CPU. Each controller is configured by a system user to service zero or more, preferred host side SCSI IDs, each host side ID associating the controller with one or more units located thereon and used by the host CPU to identify the controller when accessing one of the associated units. If one of the storage controllers in the dual-active, redundant configuration fails, the surviving one of the storage controllers automatically assumes control of all of the host side SCSI IDs and subsequently responds to any host requests directed to the preferred, host side SCSI IDS and associated units of the failed controller. When the surviving controller senses the return of the other controller, it releases to the returning other controller control of the preferred, SCSI IDS of the failed controller. In another aspect of the Marks invention, the failover is made to appear to the host CPU as simply a re-initialization of the failed controller. Consequently, all transfers outstanding are retried by the host CPU after time outs have occurred. Marks discloses ‘transparent failover’, which is an automatic technique that allows for continued operation by a partner controller on the same storage bus as the failed controller. This technique is useful in situations where the host operating system trying to access storage does not have the capability to adequately handle multiple paths to the same storage volumes. Transparent failover makes the failover event look like a ‘power-on reset’ of the storage device. However, transparent failover has a significant flaw: it is not fault tolerant to the storage bus. If the storage bus fails, all access to the storage device is lost.
However, none of the above references disclose a system having a remote backup site connected to a host site via a dual fabric l
Elkington Susan G.
Guttormson Paul
Pherson James E.
Sicola Stephen J.
Walker Michael D.
Beausoliel Robert
Duncan Marc
Hewlett--Packard Development Company, L.P.
LandOfFree
Controller-based transaction logging system for data... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Controller-based transaction logging system for data..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Controller-based transaction logging system for data... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3124474