From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mykola Golub Subject: Re: Pool setting for recovery priority Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:50:43 +0300 Message-ID: <20150925175042.GA3831@gmail.com> References: <20150921133218.GB23240@gmail.com> <20150925114440.GA30636@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43]:34346 "EHLO mail-la0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932634AbbIYRur (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:50:47 -0400 Received: by lacdq2 with SMTP id dq2so51153009lac.1 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: Mykola Golub , GuangYang , "sjust@redhat.com" , "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" , David Zafman On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote: > Hi Mykola, > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Mykola Golub wrote: > > What do you think about this implementation, which adds a dictionary > > for pool options to pg_pool_t? > > > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6081 > > > > Although #5922 has already been merged to master, I think it is still > > not late to change scrub intervals to be stored in options? > > Yeah, I agree that something along these lines is better. It's too late > to add this to infernalis, though.. I think we should revert the scrub > interval options and then use the dictionary (post-infernalis). > > How does that sound? I sounds good to me. I will rebase #6081 against master after the previous patch is reverted and mark it [DNM]. -- Mykola Golub