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
28, 2016 11:54 AM
> 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
r"
<snit...@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-bl...@vger.kernel.org, l...@lists.linux-foundation.org,
"device-mapper development" <dm-de...@redhat.com>, "linux-scsi"
<linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:53:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Lsf] Notes from the fo
y; 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, users and i
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
5 matches
Mail list logo
