On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 06:40:19AM -0800, Mark Himelstein wrote:
We have a RAS committee on the org and approved by the BOD but has not been formed and QOS is one part of what it was intended to look at (as part of availability).
I personally equated availability to tolerance of errors i.e. mechanism that would help minimize the impact of an error and avoid unplanned downtime as much as possible. These mechanisms may provide failure prediction (e.g., corrected errors exceeding a threshold). These mechanism may provide error isolation techniques (e.g, precise containment of corrupt data) to minimize the blast radius of an error to the smallest possible components without causing extensive disruption to the rest of the system. Though I personally did not think of QoS as being an availability mechanism I am certainly open to a more wider/different definition than what I equated to above.
I wonder if we can't use this as an opportunity to initiate this committee. Once it has strategy,gaps, and priorities (through itself for a SIG), the idea is the committee work with Priv to create a TG.
I think that would be a good idea and I look forward to contribute to this effort. Look forward to your guidance and suggestion on how (sorry, I am n00b on the process front).
