(snip)
> > There is also the problem that secondary server would be fine for leaf
> > servers, but what about hubs? It's for the hub that it would be the more
> > usefull, but it is also where problems begins: We have to be carefull to
> > avoid some sort of long term netbreak if 1 hub decide to jump
> to an other
> > hub but creating 2 seperate groups that way... There must be a checking
> > mecanism ;p
> >
> > I don't know it this if this is 'clear' but if you play with a sheet of
> > paper, some dots and line, wou'll see what i mean :o)
>
> My intent is to fail over to the secondaries only if a primary link falls
> over, so I'm not sure if this problem is still there...
> --
> Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
L L
| |
L C~E L
| / \ |
Servers: L-A-B G-H-L
| \ / |
L D F L
| |
L L
C is connected to E
C have F as a secondary
F is connected to G
F have D as a secondary
C-E becomes too slow...
C switch from E to F
F-G becomes too slow...
F switch from G to D
L L
| |
L C E L
| / \ \ |
Servers: L-A-B | G-H-L
| \ | |
L D-F L
| |
L L
Well, you could say that F will not be able to link to D because D will
reject it as already in the network... but since it will always be the case
with the use of secondaries... D would not have the rigth to refuse the
connection.. all it could do is send a command to force the break on the
other side... somewhere most likely between ... C and F!
And this is not all... what if both 'jumps' occur at the same time? It would
be even more problematic because no travelling command could be use to avoid
the situation...
anyway... some puzzle to solve :)
- Alocin
