On 6/5/2013 10:07 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>
> If I told you there were some of us who would prefer to attenuate the
> rate that things get written rather than cancel or delay archiving for
> a long period of time, would that explain the framing of the problem?
I understand that based on what you said above.
> Or, is it that you understand that's what I want, but find the notion
> of such a operation hard to relate to?
I think this is where I am at. To me, you don't attenuate the rate that
things get written, you fix the problem in needing to do so. The problem
is one of provisioning. Please note that I am not suggesting there
aren't improvements to be made, there absolutely are. I just wonder if
we are looking in the right place (outside of some obvious badness like
the PANIC running out of disk space).
> Or, am I misunderstanding your confusion?
To be honest part of my confusion was just trying to parse all the bits
that people were talking about into a cohesive, "this is the actual
problem".
Sincerely,
JD