Re: Dreadful gmirror performance - suggested changes to 'prefer'

2008-05-08 Thread Andrew Snow
I havent looked at the code in detail, but I can't see that it would be too difficult. What do people think ? If the first drive is always priority=0, then it is going to be stuck at the highest priority, or under your plan, the lower priority. My original idea OTOH (starting the counting at

Re: Dreadful gmirror performance - suggested changes to 'prefer'

2008-05-08 Thread Pete French
O.K., heres an initial version of the patch - relative to 7.0 release. Please test and let me know if there are any problems. Patch should apply cleanly if you are in '/usr'. cheers, -pete. begin 644 gmirror.patch.gz M'XL("",/(T@"`V=M:7)R;W(N<&[EMAIL PROTECTED](TC_+?\6$JRQV;($D/P!S MX5L6G,1U8/:,

Re: Dreadful gmirror performance - suggested changes to 'prefer'

2008-05-08 Thread Pete French
> Hmm, it would seem you need "N-and-upper" and "N-and-lower", but this is > inconvenient. Your original idea is probably better. Certainly simpler to implement. Ideally, of course, you could change the priority on the fly (which would solve all of this) but the fact that it is stored in priority

Re: Dreadful gmirror performance - suggested changes to 'prefer'

2008-05-08 Thread Ivan Voras
Pete French wrote: >> Couple of ideas: >> >> - Don't use "128" as the default since it will lead people to think >> there's an 8-bit quantity behind the setting (and subsequently develop >> weird theories about how the setting works), when it isn't so. Use 100 >> or 1000. > > Are you sure it isn't

Re: Dreadful gmirror performance - suggested changes to 'prefer'

2008-05-08 Thread Pete French
> Couple of ideas: > > - Don't use "128" as the default since it will lead people to think > there's an 8-bit quantity behind the setting (and subsequently develop > weird theories about how the setting works), when it isn't so. Use 100 > or 1000. Are you sure it isn't an 8 bit value underneath ?

Re: Dreadful gmirror performance - suggested changes to 'prefer'

2008-05-08 Thread Ivan Voras
Pete French wrote: > I am just looking at this again, and am in a bit of a mood > for writing some patches, so I wanted to run the following idea past people > as regards the priority system in the 'prefer' balancing method. > > Just to recap, creating a gmirror creates the first device with prior

Re: Dreadful gmirror performance - suggested changes to 'prefer'

2008-05-08 Thread Pete French
I am just looking at this again, and am in a bit of a mood for writing some patches, so I wanted to run the following idea past people as regards the priority system in the 'prefer' balancing method. Just to recap, creating a gmirror creates the first device with priority zero. Adding extra device