On 18/04/17 10:42 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18 2017, gordon chung wrote: > >> do we want it configurable? tbh, would anyway one configure it or know >> how to configure it? even for us, we're just guessing somewhat.lol i'm >> going to leave it static for now. > > I think we want it to be configurable, though most people would probably > not tweak it. But I can imagine some setups where increasing it would > make sure that. > There's some sense of exposing it anyway, even if it does not change > much. For example, we never exposed TASKS_PER_WORKER but in the end it > seems the 16 value is not optimal. But since we did not expose it, > there's barely no way for tester to try to tweak it and see what value > works best. :)
well argued. take it :) > > You're completely right, we needed to discuss that anyway. All your > patches version and tries build up our knowledge and expertise on the > subject, so it was definitely worth the effort, and kudos go to you for > taking that job! > > What will probably make you go back to hashring? i think your argument that hashring can be configured effectively to "work on everything" was a good argument. cheers, -- gord __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev