I've filed a bug on the issue at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360689
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Raghavendra G <raghaven...@gluster.com> wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > Is it possible to test out whether the patch fixes your issue? There is > nothing like validation from user experiencing the problem first hand. > > regards, > Raghavendra > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Jeff Darcy <jda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm not familiar with the codebase, >> so if >> > you don't mind me asking, how much would that list reordering slow >> things >> > down for, say, a queue of 1500 client machines? i.e. round-about how >> long of >> > a client list would significantly affect latency? >> > >> > I only ask because we have quite a few clients and you explicitly call >> out >> > that the queue reordering method used may have problems for lots of >> clients. >> >> It's actually less about the number of clients than about the I/O queue >> depth. That's typically a pretty small number, generally proportional to >> the number of storage devices and inversely proportional to their speed. >> So for very large numbers of very slow devices there *might* be a problem >> with the list traversals being slow, but otherwise probably not. >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@gluster.org >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> > > > > -- > Raghavendra G > -- Raghavendra G
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel