From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>
To: Guan Junxiong <guanjunxiong@huawei.com>
Cc: Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@gmail.com>,
"Shenhong (C)" <shenhong09@huawei.com>,
"dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
niuhaoxin <niuhaoxin@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] path latency prio fixes
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 16:11:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1512400279.7217.43.camel@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ec755f37-cecf-ef5c-d9ee-fa63ff39ec99@huawei.com>
On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 22:23 +0800, Guan Junxiong wrote:
>
> > An open question is what multipathd should do wrt path grouping if
> > it
> > only has preliminary prio values, in particular with group_by_prio.
>
> For the open question, in this situation, IMO it's reasonable to
> overwriting
> the preliminary prio values if we let the user/admin know : "this is
> an
> asynchronous priority checkers and it has high priority to the other
> synchronous
> prioritizer.
This is not what I meant. Once we have the final prio values, it's of
course the right thing to overwrite anything preliminary.
The "open question" arises at the time when we only have the
preliminary values: We may group paths wrongly. Really bad example: we
might be putting active and passive paths of a storage system into the
same path group, causing endless trespassing... we should probably use
"failover" policy if "group_by_prio" is selected but no reliable
priorities are available.
Martin
--
Dr. Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-04 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <06F84A57D601574CAA706EE1A6270A5F01039517@DGGEMM505-MBX.china.huawei.com>
2017-12-04 14:23 ` [PATCH 0/4] path latency prio fixes Guan Junxiong
2017-12-04 15:11 ` Martin Wilck [this message]
2017-12-05 0:23 ` Guan Junxiong
2017-11-18 0:11 Martin Wilck
2017-11-20 9:11 ` Martin Wilck
2017-12-08 20:49 ` Benjamin Marzinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1512400279.7217.43.camel@suse.com \
--to=mwilck@suse.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=guanjunxiong@huawei.com \
--cc=niuhaoxin@huawei.com \
--cc=shenhong09@huawei.com \
--cc=xose.vazquez@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.