Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Hello, On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:04:02 +0200 Felix Frank <ff at mpexnet.de> wrote: > I stand by this assessment. You got "lucky" insofar that both > nodes were primary when they saw each other again. There is no > autorecovery from that. If for some freak reason your "good" > node would have been in a demoted state at such a time, the > stale node would have killed its data. > Ah I see .. so because the "good" node is in a primary state at the moment, it's not at risk when I bring up the interface on the "bad" node. I only get bitten by that if the first node running the VMs becomes secondary. And there's no reason to suppose that will happen. Is that right? > Please note: If you would have been even more "lucky", your bad > node would have been secondary and your policy would have done > the right thing. The question you have to ask yourself boils > down to "how lucky do you feel in the long run?" ;) > > Again: It's paramount to be absolutely sure which dataset is > discarded. The above setting makes the decision a fair bit more > arbitrary. > Well - all of the VMs are running on the first node and everything is fine and up to date on those. So I'm sure I need to discard the second server's data and sync it up from the first. Many thanks James -- James Gibbon <james.gibbon at virgin.net>