On 11/7/18 11:41 AM, Martin Wilck wrote: > I apologize for coming back to this after more than a year. > I've been wondering about your dev_loss recommendation. > > What is the rationale for setting dev_loss and fast_io_fail to the same > value, which is straight against the general recommendation? And what > is the reason for the aggressively low dev_loss value anyway? Device > loss and re-discovery is much more complex to handle for both the > kernel and multipathd than failure/reinstantiation. You are the only > vendor who recommends setting dev_loss less than the default of 600s. > > Could you share your reasoning please? IMO, any change of a standard value should be documented. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
