> > > First it does not make sense for user to set it below 60; therefore, > > > it is forced to have 60 and above
> > Why not? A minute seems to be a really long time given the point of > > these patches is supposed to be failing over faster. Surely we can tell > > if a path really failed sooner than 60 seconds on an IB fabric. > When we fail-over, it will cause the luns ownership transfer in > target/storage. It's undesirable op unless necessary > Target/storage most likely can reboot and come back within 60 seconds > We don't want to create the situation of path bouncing OK, I can see why in some (many) situations it makes sense to wait a while before reporting a target as gone. But why do we hard code the policy of a minimum timeout of 60 seconds in the kernel? Why not a minimum of 120 seconds? What if I know my storage is guaranteed to reboot in 2 seconds -- why can't I have a timeout of 5 seconds? You haven't really explained where the magic number of 60 seconds comes from. - R. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
