On 2012-12-10T13:21:23, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The problem with this approach is that it slows down resync even when there
> is no other IO happening.
> If that is deemed to be acceptable, then the patch set seems fine, though I
> would probably make the default a lot higher so as not to change current
> default behaviour for anyone.
I agree to the latter part.
The difficulty is that our primary use case here is preventing IO
starvation while cluster raid is resyncing; and we don't know the IO
load on other nodes, or what other LVs might inflict on the same backend
store / PV. Hence, a static limit probably is the easiest way to
start.
I agree that a more dynamic approach would be desirable, but that
appears to be very complex to get right.
Thanks,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
