Summary: rde: avoid dual active controllers in relax promotion mode [#3188]
Review request for Ticket(s): 3188
Peer Reviewer(s): Minh, Thang, Gary
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-3188
Base revision: 54d565e262c5a4843931d8d3ceaa7c7d5895f946
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/thuantr/review
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
N/A
revision 0981df9505623d05dca09499143c3ad38ad6acb2
Author: thuan.tran <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 19:09:33 +0700
rde: avoid dual active controllers in relax promotion mode [#3188]
- In relax mode and unavailable consensus, sometimes SC-2 cannot
become active even start long time before SC-1 because current
promotion strategy only base on node id (lower is chosen).
- Change the way to get promotion by comparing promotion pending
duration, node with promotion pending longer will get promotion and
another node will give up. This help node start first become active.
If promotion pending duration is same, lower node id will promote.
- Node already give up promotion has set role to QUIESCED should not
promote active anyway, it will cause dual active controllers.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/rde/rded/rde_cb.h | 3 +++
src/rde/rded/rde_main.cc | 10 +++++++++-
src/rde/rded/rde_mds.cc | 9 +++++++++
src/rde/rded/role.cc | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
src/rde/rded/role.h | 3 ++-
5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
N/A
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
N/A
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
ACK by reviewers or 1 week no comment
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 y y
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
