Vladislav Zolotarov

> > > > @asias please, take a look. IMO this feature makes no sense at all. AFAIU if you schedule more token ranges than max_parallel_ranges they would simply queue...

> Closing, intensity 0.1 will be depracated in 3.2 #3424 Let's reconsider. See my comments on #3424

> @vladzcloudius do you think this one is still required? Is it still useful for anyone? Of course it's useful. It is going to be useful to every Scylla Driver...

cc @tomer-sandler @tarzanek @pdbossman @igorribeiroduarte @ebenzecri @gcarmin @harel-z

> @vladzcloudius I can see the value of showing the priority-class load (I'm not sure if we report it). We do, @amnonh. You can find it on the "Advanced" dashboard....

> Thanks @isburmistrov I do not have a strong opinion about the value of the load metric in the main dashboard. I believe the dashboard should be stable since users...

> I agree that a "true load" metric would be desirable, but I don't know how we could implement it reliably. Good point (and examples), @michoecho. But this is actually...

> @tzach We had this discussion in the past about latency max. I think the overall understanding is that max is not relevant for latency, just quantile (for example, P99)....

> The solution will be: when the aggregation function is set to sum, we will have the current behavior (e.g. the actual latency of the node, dc or cluster). Aren't...

> @vladzcloudius I'm working on an updated version, when looking at the latencies shard view (per scheduling group) do we want to remove the one that are zero? This will...