Maybe we should have one pool per type per server? -- Rob
On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Walter Ligon wrote:
Hello everyone. We have a bit of a quandry ... we have found
ourselves wanting to use preallocated handles for more than just
datafiles. We decided we could populate the pools with handles of
various types, but now the interfaces seem to be presenting a problem.
Our idea was to change the current record structure which (as I
understand it) is:
key value
pool-handle:remote-handle <void>
to:
pool-handle:type:remote-handle <void>
which would figure would allow us to locate the handles of the right
type, and then grab one, but apparently the iterate-handles method
assumes you will search only for the pool-handle ...
so we're contemplating changing that interface, but I am generall
loath to make such a change and would value whatever input you have.
As an alternative we have thought about modifying the record to store:
pool-handle:remote-handle type
and pass in a call back that tests the value for the desired info.
This also is an interface change, and worse, might have to skip over
hundreds of records to find a type it wants.
Another idea was to have multiple pools per remote server, but this
would involve messing with a number of algorithms that pick between
servers (which seem to assume there is one pool per server).
Any thoughts?
Walt
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
