On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:47 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > > 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.
On that note, does this have to be a module parameter -- what if I have connections to different devices, that have different reboot guarantees? And if I really want a timeout of less than 60 seconds, why should I have to patch my kernel? And if I want to disable this completely? -- Dave Dillow National Center for Computational Science Oak Ridge National Laboratory (865) 241-6602 office -- 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
