Details

    • New Feature
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Minor
    • Lustre 2.5.0
    • Lustre 2.5.0
    • None
    • 7051

    Description

      This is the ticket to implement http://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/FUJ-2.

      A new parameter is added to the definition of a route: priority. This can take on a value of 0 or 1. 0 means the route has a normal priority, 1 means it is a high priority route and will be used before a normal priority route.

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            [LU-2934] Add LNet Router Priority Parameter
            jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) made changes -
            Resolution New: Fixed [ 1 ]
            Status Original: Open [ 1 ] New: Resolved [ 5 ]

            Patches landed to Master in 2.5.0.

            jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) added a comment - Patches landed to Master in 2.5.0.
            jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) made changes -
            Fix Version/s New: Lustre 2.5.0 [ 10295 ]

            Test plan has been updated to match design changes.

            Isaac and I have discussed his concerns via email.

            doug Doug Oucharek (Inactive) added a comment - Test plan has been updated to match design changes. Isaac and I have discussed his concerns via email.
            doug Doug Oucharek (Inactive) made changes -
            Attachment New: RoutePriority_TestPlan.docx [ 13408 ]
            doug Doug Oucharek (Inactive) made changes -
            Attachment Original: RoutePriority_TestPlan.docx [ 12411 ]

            Doug, could you please answer Isaac's previous question:

            Sorry Doug, it's still not clear to me why this patch is needed. Can you please give me an example where the precedence can't be expressed by the current 'hops' and a new 'priority' must be added to support it? There has to be a use case where the 'hops' doesn't work to justify a new precedence mechanism.

            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - Doug, could you please answer Isaac's previous question: Sorry Doug, it's still not clear to me why this patch is needed. Can you please give me an example where the precedence can't be expressed by the current 'hops' and a new 'priority' must be added to support it? There has to be a use case where the 'hops' doesn't work to justify a new precedence mechanism.
            adilger Andreas Dilger made changes -
            Link New: This issue is related to LU-3836 [ LU-3836 ]
            jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) made changes -
            Link New: This issue is related to LUDOC-157 [ LUDOC-157 ]
            jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) made changes -
            Affects Version/s New: Lustre 2.5.0 [ 10295 ]

            People

              doug Doug Oucharek (Inactive)
              doug Doug Oucharek (Inactive)
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: