[3128] in SIPB-AFS-requests
Re: [timely] Re: Proceeding with new-rosebud
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathon Weiss)
Thu Aug 20 17:50:26 1998
From: Jonathon Weiss <jweiss@MIT.EDU>
To: sipb-afsreq@MIT.EDU, beep-jhawk@MIT.EDU
Cc: Jonathon Weiss <jweiss@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Aug 1998 05:27:22 EDT."
<199808190927.FAA09321@contents-vnder-pressvre.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:50:10 EDT
> I'm pretty sure the only likely consequences of this patch are that
> either it will work as expected and the patched server will never
> become the sync site but the other two servers will, or that the cell
> might lose quorum in some situations. I don't think the latter is
> likely, based on my limited ubik understanding, but I should mention
> it.
I have not looked at your patch, but I am concerned that if rc goes
down, the cell will end up without quorum. It is my guess that if rc
goes down, ra will vote for rb, and rb with either fail to vote or
vote for rc, either way no server will have a majority of the votes.
Could you explain why you think this won't happen.
> It can be argued that it is better for the cell to lose quorum
> than it would be for some clients to fail to make db changes (because
> a loss of quorum would be evident whereas the latter failure might not
> be).
I believe that the latter failure should be obivious to the person
attempting to make the change, in the form a a message that says
something to the effect of the change failed but it should work if you
try it on the sync site.
Jonathon
