> The shortcomings of timeouts have been discussed on this list before. How do > you tell the difference between a drive that is dead and a path that is just > highly loaded?
A path that is dead is either returning bad data, or isn't returning anything. A highly loaded path is by definition reading & writing lots of data. I think you're assuming that these are file level timeouts, when this would actually need to be much lower level. > Sounds good - devil, meet details, etc. Yup, I imagine there are going to be a few details to iron out, many of which will need looking at by somebody a lot more technical than myself. Despite that I still think this is a discussion worth having. So far I don't think I've seen any situation where this would make things worse than they are now, and I can think of plenty of cases where it would be a huge improvement. Of course, it also probably means a huge amount of work to implement. I'm just hoping that it's not prohibitively difficult, and that the ZFS team see the benefits as being worth it. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
