Looks fine. Reviewed-by: Guan Junxiong <guanjunxiong@xxxxxxxxxx> On 2017/11/18 8:11, Martin Wilck wrote: > The warnings at here are pointless. We are looking at a single > path only. Firstly, the standdard deviation for this measurement > can't be "too low" - the lower, the more precise the measurement, > the better. Secondly, a high standard deviation indicates an > unstable path with highly variable latency. Not good, but nothing > to warn about here. > > What matters for the selection of "base_num" is not how a single > path behaves, but how different paths of the same path group relate > to each other, which we don't know at this point at the code. > Oh, you are right. Thanks. > What we want to avoid is too fine a differentiation, in particular > in combination with group_by_prio, because we'd loose the ability for > load balancing. But this is rather a topic for the man page or a > "best practices" document. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> > --- > libmultipath/prioritizers/path_latency.c | 34 -------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 34 deletions(-) > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
