[Retrying as my new setup secretly converted to html format without telling me.
Apologies for the resend.]
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review Sagi. I’d be OK going with <=0 as the exact
>>> match would normally be for minimal IO sizes (where <= and = are the
>>> same thing). I will see what other
On 03/28/2017 01:58 PM, Stephen Bates wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review Sagi. I’d be OK going with <=0 as the exact
>>> match would normally be for minimal IO sizes (where <= and = are the
>>> same thing). I will see what other feedback I get and aim to do a
>>> respin soon…
>>
>> No tunables
>>
>> Thanks for the review Sagi. I’d be OK going with <=0 as the exact
>> match would normally be for minimal IO sizes (where <= and = are the
>> same thing). I will see what other feedback I get and aim to do a
>> respin soon…
>
> No tunables for this, please. There's absolutely no reason why
On 03/28/2017 01:38 PM, Stephen Bates wrote:
>>>
>>> In order to bucket IO for the polling algorithm we use a sysfs entry
>>> to set the filter value. It is signed and we will use that as follows:
>>>
>>> 0 : No filtering. All IO are considered in stat generation
>>> > 0 : Filtering based
>>
>> In order to bucket IO for the polling algorithm we use a sysfs entry
>> to set the filter value. It is signed and we will use that as follows:
>>
>> 0 : No filtering. All IO are considered in stat generation
>> > 0 : Filtering based on IO of exactly this size only.
>> < 0 :
On 26/03/17 05:18, sba...@raithlin.com wrote:
From: Stephen Bates
In order to bucket IO for the polling algorithm we use a sysfs entry
to set the filter value. It is signed and we will use that as follows:
0 : No filtering. All IO are considered in stat generation
>
From: Stephen Bates
In order to bucket IO for the polling algorithm we use a sysfs entry
to set the filter value. It is signed and we will use that as follows:
0 : No filtering. All IO are considered in stat generation
> 0 : Filtering based on IO of exactly this size