Re: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM

2016-04-28 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 16:19 +, Knight, Frederick wrote: > There are multiple possible situations being intermixed in this > discussion. First, I assume you're talking only about random access > devices (if you try transport level error recover on a sequential > access device - tape or SMR disk

Re: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM

2016-04-28 Thread Bart Van Assche
; To: James Bottomley; Mike Snitzer > Cc: linux-bl...@vger.kernel.org; l...@lists.linux-foundation.org; > device-mapper development; linux-scsi > Subject: Re: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM > > On 04/28/2016 08:40 AM, James Bottomley wrote: >> Well, the

Re: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM

2016-04-28 Thread Laurence Oberman
device-mapper development" , "linux-scsi" Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:53:50 AM Subject: Re: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM On 04/28/2016 08:40 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > Well, the entire room, that's vendors, users and implementors

RE: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM

2016-04-28 Thread Knight, Frederick
tomley; Mike Snitzer Cc: linux-bl...@vger.kernel.org; l...@lists.linux-foundation.org; device-mapper development; linux-scsi Subject: Re: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM On 04/28/2016 08:40 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > Well, the entire room, that's vendors, u

Re: [Lsf] Notes from the four separate IO track sessions at LSF/MM

2016-04-28 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 04/28/2016 08:40 AM, James Bottomley wrote: Well, the entire room, that's vendors, users and implementors complained that path failover takes far too long. I think in their minds this is enough substance to go on. The only complaints I heard about path failover taking too long came from pe