At Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:35:05 +0800, Liu Yuan wrote: > > On 10/19/2011 02:25 PM, MORITA Kazutaka wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka at lab.ntt.co.jp> > > --- > > Hi Yuan, > > > > Isn't it better to add a nohalt field instead of a generic name > > "flags"? This would be the most intuitive way. The size of config > > file wouldn't become a problem, so we don't need to save bits, I > > think. > > > > How do you think? > > > > > Hi Kazum, > > I think we'd better live with flags. with set/get_cluster_falgs(). Then > we can add more options (for e.g. noqlimit, no rquest queue limit later I guess these options are not cluster-wide ones. The size of the limit depends on each machine spec. How about make them the sheep command line options? > for the cluster that doesn't need it at all. etc.), which will use this > interface to store it in the local storage. > > If not, we'll have to write functions to store those options locally > every time we add a new option. But we need to define set/get functions in either case when we add a non-boolean option to sheepdog_config. In addition, I'm not sure we really have so many cluster-wide options. Anyway, we should read sheepdog_config only when starting Sheepdog, then we don't need to implement a get function for each field. Thanks, Kazutaka |