[DRBD-user] Why not keep track of peer outdated on up node?

GAUTIER Hervé herve.gautier at thalesgroup.com
Mon Mar 9 12:17:37 CET 2009

Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.


Hi

Martin Fick a écrit :
> I am going to ask this again since I did not get 
> a reply last time.  Perhaps someone who overlooked 
> my question could answer it this time? :)
>
> If node B goes down while node A is still primary, 
> should it not be possible to keep track of the fact 
> that node B is now outdated on node A?  This way, 
> if node A goes down while node B is still down, 
> when node A comes back up it should know that it 
> can safely proceed to primary without waiting for 
> node B to return.
>   

How do you know that, while node A was down, node B haven't been up and 
down several times ???

> If the cluster was degraded when node A went down, 
> it should be able to continue to operate degraded 
> safely when node A comes backup right?  Is there 
> anything wrong with this logic?  Are there 
> currently any mechanisms to do this?  Would you
> consider implementing this in drbd?
>
>   

I think it is a cluster matter, not DRBD one.

-- 
Hervé GAUTIER




More information about the drbd-user mailing list