On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:20:46PM +0000, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 11:33 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > The delay_checks shaky paths detection method works the same way as > > the > > san_path_err method, but not as well, with less configurability, and > > with the code spread all over check_path(). The only real difference > > is > > that marks the path as marginal for a certain number of path checks > > instead of for a specific time. This patch deprecates the > > delay_checks > > method and maps it to the the san_path_err method. > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > libmultipath/configure.c | 17 +---------- > > libmultipath/propsel.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > I suppose that quite a few users are working with "delay_*_checks" in > production. If we remove the option, we should at least clearly > document how to map existing delay_*_checks parameters to san_path_err* > parameters. Didn't I? My patch does include changes to the man page that tells how it gets remapped. > IIUC, to (roughly) imitate the settings > > delay_watch_checks = C > delay_wait_checks = W > > I need to set > > san_path_err_threshold = 2 > san_path_err_forget_rate = C > san_path_err_recovery_time = W > > Correct? Or can it be done better? Well, the code uses san_path_err_threshold = 1 (since checks for a number of errors greater than this threshold) san_path_err_forget_rate = C san_path_err_recovery_time = W * polling_interval > (It's not exactly the same, as delay_watch_checks starts counting when > a path is reinstated after a failure, while san_path_err_threshold > counts good->bad transitions, and the threshold would be reached if a > path fails more often than every C ticks _on average_). > If the above is fine, we might as well map these settings in the code > directly. IOW, instead of ignoring "delay_*_checks" altogether, we > should ignore it only if either san_path_* or marginal_path_* > parameters are set; Otherwise, we could simply map the delay_*_checks > parameters as shown above. Err.. This patch does do the remapping in code (in propsel.c) just as you suggest.. right? I'm confused here. -Ben > That would be a bit more user friendly in terms of backwards > compatibility. > > Regards > Martin > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
