[LU-2934] Add LNet Router Priority Parameter Created: 08/Mar/13 Updated: 15/Oct/13 Resolved: 15/Oct/13 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 2.5.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | Lustre 2.5.0 |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | Minor |
| Reporter: | Doug Oucharek (Inactive) | Assignee: | Doug Oucharek (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Attachments: |
RoutePriority_TestPlan.docx
|
||||||||||||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Rank (Obsolete): | 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. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Doug Oucharek (Inactive) [ 08/Mar/13 ] |
|
The patch for this change is: http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5663 |
| Comment by Isaac Huang (Inactive) [ 08/Mar/13 ] |
|
Hi Doug, can you please explain how this is different from the hops of a route and how is it going to work together with hops? Thanks! |
| Comment by Doug Oucharek (Inactive) [ 12/Mar/13 ] |
|
The implementation is the same as for hops, except that priority has a value of 0 or 1 (normal priority and high priority). It is then just a priority "flag". In the algorithm for selecting a route, high priority takes precedence over hops. So, a high priority route will always be used over a route which has a normal priority and a lower hop count. Technically, the current hop count can be used for priority (lower hop count is higher priority), but in cases where the customer wants to use hop count for hops and have a way to flag routes which must always be used first, the addition of a priority flag is needed. |
| Comment by Doug Oucharek (Inactive) [ 20/Mar/13 ] |
|
Test Plan for Route Priority project |
| Comment by Isaac Huang (Inactive) [ 30/Apr/13 ] |
|
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. |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 26/Aug/13 ] |
|
Doug, could you please answer Isaac's previous question:
|
| Comment by Doug Oucharek (Inactive) [ 27/Aug/13 ] |
|
Test plan has been updated to match design changes. Isaac and I have discussed his concerns via email. |
| Comment by Jodi Levi (Inactive) [ 15/Oct/13 ] |
|
Patches landed to Master in 2.5.0. |