Unable to locate message

Horms horms at vergenet.net
Mon Apr 10 00:26:15 MDT 2000


On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 09:30:45PM -0700, banibrata dutta wrote:
> hi horms,
> 
> could you please elaborate on what you mean by -- letting the
> nodes have knowledge of the resources held by other nodes... i
> suppose what you mean is, the knowledge of resources held by
> other nodes, just before THIS node lost contact with all others?

I am thinking of a situation where two nodes lose communication with
each other and most likely activate the resources. Then when
contact is re-established the nodes communicate which resources
each has active and vote/negotiate which node should own the
resource and then give up or take over resources accordingly.

> if this is done, then what do we gain ? are you saying that, if
> node B was running an ACT httpd service, and node A was running
> an ACT mail services, (with B being SBY for mail service, and A
> being SBY for httpd service), and then node A and B lose comm.,
> then they keep running their ACT services, and make sure that
> the SBY services never come in effect...??
> 
> although i do not have a clear picture of a mental block i have
> to this solution, but i feel that, such a solution, under some
> cases might lead to HA philosophy being compromised over. of
> course, under such critical failure cases (i.e. if we can call
> it so...), operator assistance might be mandated, and a total
> software based recovery might not be possible, and this whole
> arrangement is rather acceptable!! i am not so sure... when i
> think as a developer, i feel rather convinced, but when i try to
> think as a customer, i do not really feel that convinced!!
> what do you say ?

I guess it depends on the resource in question. Regardless,
I think the aim should be to bring the nodes back to
an equilibrium, of one active node once communication is
re-established.

-- 
Horms



More information about the Linux-HA mailing list