On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:10:27PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:04 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:17:00PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:10:33PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 13:35 -0500, D
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:04 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:17:00PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:10:33PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 13:35 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > > > 0. configure token timeout to some long
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:17:00PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:10:33PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 13:35 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > > 0. configure token timeout to some long time that is longer than all the
> > >following steps take
>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:17:00PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:10:33PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 13:35 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > > 0. configure token timeout to some long time that is longer than all the
> > >following steps take
>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:10:33PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 13:35 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > 0. configure token timeout to some long time that is longer than all the
> >following steps take
> >
> > 1. cluster members are nodeid's: 1,2,3,4
> >
> > 2. cpg foo has
On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 09:41 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 09:58:15PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 06:06:13PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> > > I'd like to clear up that when Andrew talks about the membership not
> > > generating a leave event for totem p
On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 13:35 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 06:02:38PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> > The issue that Dave is talking about I believe is described in the
> > following bugzilla:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489451
>
> No, not at all.
>
> > I
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 06:02:38PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> The issue that Dave is talking about I believe is described in the
> following bugzilla:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489451
No, not at all.
> IMO you should get a leave event for any process that leaves the process
>
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 09:58:15PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 06:06:13PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> > I'd like to clear up that when Andrew talks about the membership not
> > generating a leave event for totem processes in this scenario (which he
> > integrates directly wi
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 06:06:13PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> I'd like to clear up that when Andrew talks about the membership not
> generating a leave event for totem processes in this scenario (which he
> integrates directly with), this is true. But cpg should generate a
> leave event.
> guarantees you seek, and if it doesn't, it is defective. The only
> exception might be if the new process reuses the same PID since the
> pid/nodeid/group are the uniqifiers and if pid is the same, there is
no
> way to detect the new process (and remove the old one).
PID reuse happens more ofte
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 17:17 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:09:18PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:50:08PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:12:43PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joe
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 17:17 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:09:18PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:50:08PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:12:43PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joe
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:09:18PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:50:08PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:12:43PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joel Becker wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:12:43PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joel Becker wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> For added fun, a node that restarts quickly enough (think a VM) won't
> >> even appear to have left (or rejoin
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:17:47PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> A proper system using this model doesn't care - it synchronizes every
> time regardless of who left or joined based upon whether it has state to
> sync that is unique.
Dave,
If we're going to use cpg for our membership, we need
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:17:47PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> You want a guarantee that virtual synchrony doesn't provide. Virtual
> synchrony doesn't provide indications of join or left, but only the
> current membership. It has no way of knowing who joined, or left other
> then to take the pre
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 16:09 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:50:08PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:12:43PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joel Becker wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, An
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:50:08PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:12:43PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joel Becker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > >> For added fun, a node that restarts qu
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:50:08PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:12:43PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joel Becker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > >> For added fun, a node that restarts qu
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:12:43PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joel Becker wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> For added fun, a node that restarts quickly enough (think a VM) won't
> >> even appear to have left (or rejoin
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 19:15, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> For added fun, a node that restarts quickly enough (think a VM) won't
>> even appear to have left (or rejoined) the cluster.
>> At the next totem confchg event, It will simply j
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 20:49, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> For added fun, a node that restarts quickly enough (think a VM) won't
>> even appear to have left (or rejoined) the cluster.
>> At the next totem confchg event, It will simply just
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 08:37:00AM +0100, Chrissie Caulfield wrote:
> 1) If member_count == join count, then it's a safe bet that they are all
> new nodes, and yes , it is true that all nodes should see the same
> confchg messages
>
> 2) if join_count > 0 then leave_count will always be zero. That
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> For added fun, a node that restarts quickly enough (think a VM) won't
> even appear to have left (or rejoined) the cluster.
> At the next totem confchg event, It will simply just be there again
> with no indication that anything happ
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 01:50:18PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> For added fun, a node that restarts quickly enough (think a VM) won't
> even appear to have left (or rejoined) the cluster.
> At the next totem confchg event, It will simply just be there again
> with no indication that anything happ
Robert Wipfel wrote:
On 4/9/2009 at 5:50 AM, in message
> <26ef5e70904090450s40e92dcfgea0fc34826360...@mail.gmail.com>, Andrew Beekhof
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 09:37, Chrissie Caulfield wrote:
>>> Joel Becker wrote:
Steve, Dave, etc,
Someone told me a while back t
>>> On 4/9/2009 at 5:50 AM, in message
<26ef5e70904090450s40e92dcfgea0fc34826360...@mail.gmail.com>, Andrew Beekhof
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 09:37, Chrissie Caulfield wrote:
>> Joel Becker wrote:
>>> Steve, Dave, etc,
>>> Someone told me a while back that a node joining a cpg group
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 09:37, Chrissie Caulfield wrote:
> Joel Becker wrote:
>> Steve, Dave, etc,
>> Someone told me a while back that a node joining a cpg group
>> would be by its lonesome in the join message. That is, when the node
>> gets its first confchg, it will be the only node in th
Joel Becker wrote:
> Steve, Dave, etc,
> Someone told me a while back that a node joining a cpg group
> would be by its lonesome in the join message. That is, when the node
> gets its first confchg, it will be the only node in the list of joins.
> I've been using this to detect the first joi
30 matches
Mail list logo
