[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] REQUEST for new 'topology' metrics to be moved out of the 'queue' sysfs directory.
- From: Neil Brown <neilb suse de>
- To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin petersen oracle com>
- Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, linux-scsi vger kernel org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-raid vger kernel org, linux-ide vger kernel org, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, jens axboe oracle com, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds linux-foundation org>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] REQUEST for new 'topology' metrics to be moved out of the 'queue' sysfs directory.
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:58:29 +1000
On Thursday June 25, martin petersen oracle com wrote:
> >>>>> "Neil" == NeilBrown <neilb suse de> writes:
>
> And just to make it clear: I completely agree with your argument that
> which knob to choose is I/O size dependent. My beef with your proposal
> is that I believe the length of the list should be 2.
0, 1, or infinity are the only credible sizes for this sort of list.
However I feel I've written enough on this particular issue (the
particular meaning of the various fields, not the directory location
which I still feel strongly about).
Providing the fields are clearly and unambiguously documented so that
it I can use the documentation to verify the implementation (in md at
least), I will be satisfied. And if the names of the files actually
match the documented meaning (so e.g. s/io/write/) I might even be
happy.
I'm looking forward to seeing how you justify the name
"physical_block_size" in a way the encompasses possibilities like a
device that stripes over a heterogeneous set of disk drives ;-)
Thanks,
NeilBrown
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]