https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-2934 Lustre <p>This is the ticket to implement <a href="http://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/FUJ-2" class="external-link" rel="nofollow">http://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/FUJ-2</a>.</p> <p>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.</p> LU-2934

Add LNet Router Priority Parameter

New Feature Minor Resolved Fixed Doug Oucharek Doug Oucharek Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:16:55 +0000 Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:49:37 +0000 Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:49:37 +0000 Lustre 2.5.0 Lustre 2.5.0 0 5 <p>The patch for this change is: <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5663" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5663</a></p> <p>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!</p> <p>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.</p> <p>So, a high priority route will always be used over a route which has a normal priority and a lower hop count.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Test Plan for Route Priority project</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Doug, could you please answer Isaac's previous question:</p> <blockquote> <p>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.</p></blockquote> <p>Test plan has been updated to match design changes.</p> <p>Isaac and I have discussed his concerns via email.</p> <p>Patches landed to Master in 2.5.0.</p> Related LU-3836 LUDOC-157 Development Rank 1|hzvki7: Rank (Obsolete) 7051