.. > Since the object of this code is to save time on shutdown and restart, 16 > has little relation to time. I would think that having this update on a time > basis would more reasonably reflect this. I would like to see a fairly short > time, say ten minutes, since the cost of a save is low, and ten minutes > seems like a reasonable lower bound on "worth effort to save" recovery. > > As arrays get larger even a 16th of the recovery time can be a pretty long > time, particularly if the min recovery speed is set fairly low to avoid > impact on a production server. I agree. This seems pretty reasonable. How can on protect against time changes (like my clock just got reset back 21000 seconds type of problem). -- Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
