Bergström; Bertil Engelholm
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
Well anything that would reduce the risk of a restore is I suppose currently,
unnaceptably but defacto, the dominating factor.
So perhaps performance *is* relevant with t
dt; Bertil Engelholm
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
I would prefer if PBE was enabled at system start and never touched again. That
I think should be our goal. In the next release we can see if we can reach it.
I guess this
dt; Bertil Engelholm
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
This patch is only about moving the point where the IMM content will be
persistent. This will gain the system robustness during the test period.
On this I think we can agre
) end goal.
/Hans
> -Original Message-
> From: Ingvar Bergström [mailto:ingvar.bergst...@ericsson.com]
> Sent: den 19 december 2013 15:57
> To: Anders Björnerstedt; Bertil Engelholm
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Re
PRTO).
/AndersBj
-Original Message-
From: Ingvar Bergström
Sent: den 19 december 2013 15:14
To: Anders Björnerstedt; Bertil Engelholm
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
Campaigns I have seen have typically one or two
ders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com]
Sent: den 19 december 2013 15:26
To: Ingvar Bergström; Bertil Engelholm
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
I am not worried about performance. Thats not the issue.
I am worried about robustness
Message-
From: Ingvar Bergström
Sent: den 19 december 2013 15:14
To: Anders Björnerstedt; Bertil Engelholm
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
Campaigns I have seen have typically one or two procedures. So from SMF there
will
ngvar
-Original Message-
From: Anders Björnerstedt
Sent: den 19 december 2013 14:57
To: Ingvar Bergström; Bertil Engelholm
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
How many subtrees would you typically have?
If the entire campaign is ONE
rgström; Bertil Engelholm
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
Well the problem I am worried about is if there is alreg number of PRTOs to be
deleted, Then that is definitely a risky operation in itself with PBE turned
on.
But if y
ensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
Well the problem I am worried about is if there is alreg number of PRTOs to be
deleted, Then that is definitely a risky operation in itself with PBE turned
on.
But if you have deleted the bulk o
-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
That's a valid question. The difference to the existing solution is that the
wrapup actions (if any) which are executed at commit will be executed with PBE
turned on.
Normally a limited number o
nsaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for SMF #677
One question on this SMF enhancement.
I understand that PBE will be switched on towards the end of a campaign, but
earlier than before.
Does this mean that there remains a phase of cleanup/deletes of lot
One question on this SMF enhancement.
I understand that PBE will be switched on towards the end of a campaign, but
earlier than before.
Does this mean that there remains a phase of cleanup/deletes of lots of PRTOs
to be done after testing ?
If so then *maybe* PBE should be turned off again, dur
13 matches
Mail list logo
