Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Hervé Gautier wrote:
>
> Joseph L. Casale a écrit :
> >
> >>What about using both ?
> >
> >Why, what would that accomplish?
> It could be a way to allocated bandwidth per resource, but in case
> of several resources need to synchronize, the global may be used for
> a global limitation.
> For example:
>
> common {
> syncer {
> rate 20M;
> [...]
> }
> [...]
> }
> resource r1
> syncer {
> rate 10M;
> [...]
> }
> [...]
> }
> resource r2
> syncer {
> rate 15M;
> [...]
> }
> [...]
> }
>
>
> So I define my maximum bandwidth at 20M in the common part. This is
> due to my network.
> Because of the limitation of the disks of r1, I define a bandwidth
> at 10M for this resource,
> and because of the limitation of the disks of r2, I define a
> bandwidth at 15M for this resource.
>
> Thus:
> - If r1 has to be synchronized, my bandwidth will be 10M.
> - If r2 has to be synchronized, my bandwidth will be 15M.
> - If r1 and r2 have to be synchronized, my bandwidth will be 20M
> (and not 10+15=25M).
That's not how it works. Its not a global limit, but a common default
inherited by those resourced that don't override it locally.
I see that it could be useful to have the global limit you describe.
But we don't have it.
--
: Lars Ellenberg
: LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
: DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com
DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.
__
please don't Cc me, but send to list -- I'm subscribed