Just out of curiosity, what benefits do we think this throttling xlator would provide over the "enable-least-priority" option (where we put all the fops from SHD, etc into a least pri queue)?
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 12:29 AM, Venky Shankar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 01:08:38PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote: >> On 01/25/2016 12:56 PM, Venky Shankar wrote: >>> Also, it would be beneficial to have the core TBF implementation as part of >>> libglusterfs so as to be consumable by the server side xlator component to >>> throttle dispatched FOPs and for daemons to throttle anything that's outside >>> "brick" boundary (such as cpu, etc..). >> That makes sense. We were initially thinking to overload posix_rchecksum() >> to do the SHA256 sums for the signer. > > That does have advantages by avoiding network rountrips by computing SHA* > locally. > TBF could still implement ->rchecksum and throttle that (on behalf of clients, > residing on the server - internal daemons). Placing the core implementation as > part of libglusterfs would still provide the flexibility. > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gluster.org_mailman_listinfo_gluster-2Ddevel&d=CwICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=N7LE2BKIHDDBvkYkakYthA&m=9W9xtRg0TIEUvFL-8HpUCux8psoWKkUbEFiwqykRwH4&s=OVF0dZRXt8GFcIxsHlkbNjH-bjD9097q5hjVVHgOFkQ&e= > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
