The Friday 30 May 2014 à 19:53:12 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote : > On 30.05.2014 13:18, Benoît Canet wrote: > >These are the last bits required to make quorum usable in production. > > > >v5: rebase on latest Stefan's block branch [Kevin] > > > >v4: > > update patchset to stefan's block branch > > drop Max reviewed by because the series changes > > > >Benoît Canet (3): > > quorum: Add the rewrite-corrupted parameter to quorum. > > block: Add drive-mirror-replace command > > qemu-iotests: Add 096 new test for drive-mirror-replace. > > Independently of this series, while looking at patch 1 again > (although I had reviewed it before already), I noticed that > quorum_get_winner() does not select the definite winner, but only a > winner. So if you have a quorum instance with four children and a > threshold of two, it may happen that there are basically two winners > which both fulfill the threshold condition. In this case, > quorum_get_winner() will just return the first winner. However, I > think it should then return that there is no winner (i.e., NULL). > > On the other hand, the user should be aware that it may be a bad > idea to choose a threshold which does not exceed half of the > children count; thus, I'm just asking what you think about this. :-)
I think Quorum n/(2 *n) is a bad idea. (n + 1) / (2 *n) is a least required. I wonder where we could put some documentation about this for the user. Best regards Benoît > > Max >