[Drbd-dev] Another drbd race

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2004-09-07T14:05:02,
   Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg at linbit.com> said:

> maybe we still need to have this a two-stage process:
> after reboot, and we remain in Secondary/Unknown,
> we need to be told "peer dead", but we also need to get the confirmation
> "up-to-date" (just to cover our ass).

> when it was just a connection loss, we *are* up-to-date, and just need the
> confirmation "peer dead"; or we get the confirmation "link dead, peer
> alive", which basically is "you are outdated!".
> 
> just so we cannot be blamed for "automatically losing transactions",
> even in a multiple failure scenario.

I think peer-dead is sufficient. I don't see the additional problem
solved here?


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb at suse.de>

-- 
High Availability & Clustering	   \\\  /// 
SUSE Labs, Research and Development \honk/ 
SUSE LINUX AG - A Novell company     \\//