@yuripv I closed this due to inactivity, and the fact that I didn't originate
the change. Feel free to pick it up via a new PR and address the issues raised
in the comments.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
h
Why?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/470#issuecomment-356407180
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
https://openzfs.topicbox.com/grou
Closed #470.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/470#event-1416438801
--
openzfs-developer
Archives:
https://openzfs.topicbox.com/gr
yuripv commented on this pull request.
> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ vdev_file_open(vdev_t *vd, uint64_t *psize, uint64_t
> *max_psize,
int error;
/*
+* Rotational optimizations only make sense on block devices
@richardelling yes, I added the ```un_f_is_rotational``` exactly f
@jblachly @prakashsurya yes, I'm on board with the renaming. We'll want to get
a PR open against ZoL for the rename and the inversion of the logic where it's
used.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://gi
@behlendorf pinging you directly (please the comment above), since we'll want
to get you on board w.r.t. changing this in the ZOL codebase too.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openz
I am happy to reverse this nomenclature/logic (i.e. "rotation is the exception
that applies to block devices.") although this could then be confusing with
respect to ZOL unless they also reversed. Is there a consensus?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply t
richardelling commented on this pull request.
> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ vdev_file_open(vdev_t *vd, uint64_t *psize, uint64_t
> *max_psize,
int error;
/*
+* Rotational optimizations only make sense on block devices
I don't think we need a code change here, there is lots of
yuripv commented on this pull request.
> @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ struct vdev {
vdev_stat_t vdev_stat; /* virtual device statistics*/
boolean_t vdev_expanding; /* expand the vdev? */
boolean_t vdev_reopening; /* reopen in progress?
yuripv commented on this pull request.
> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ vdev_file_open(vdev_t *vd, uint64_t *psize, uint64_t
> *max_psize,
int error;
/*
+* Rotational optimizations only make sense on block devices
and the device property we added is "device-rotational" as well.
behlendorf commented on this pull request.
> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ vdev_file_open(vdev_t *vd, uint64_t *psize, uint64_t
> *max_psize,
int error;
/*
+* Rotational optimizations only make sense on block devices
So under Linux in user space this tuning does appear as
`/sys
richardelling commented on this pull request.
> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ vdev_file_open(vdev_t *vd, uint64_t *psize, uint64_t
> *max_psize,
int error;
/*
+* Rotational optimizations only make sense on block devices
nit: don't assume people have common sense. A better approa
ikozhukhov approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/470#pullrequestreview-64628626
--
openzfs-developer
Ar
13 matches
Mail list logo
