> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Jim Jagielski
> In other words, lets assume members a, b and c are in > set 0 and d, e and f are in set 1 and g, h and i are in > set 2. We check a, b and c and they are not usable, so > we now start checking set 1. Should we re-check the > members in set 0 (maybe they are usable now) or > just check members of set 1 (logically, the question > is whether we doing a <= set# or == set#). I have > both methods coded and am flip-flopping on which > makes the most sense. I'm leaning towards #1 (<=set#). I would also lean to #1 as this means that once cluster set 0 failed and is back again we are using it again, which seems natural to me. OTH I guess we need to consider session stickyness in this case. So sessions that have been migrated to set 1 should stay there until they vanish or someone knocks them out by disabling this cluster set (BTW: <feature-creep> will it be possible to disable complete cluster sets via the manager? </feature-creep> )and thus forcing them back to cluster set 0. Regards Rüdiger
