"manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote : I inherently don't like using a static
cluster size configuration. With larger clusters, nodes joining and leaving the cluster
should be seen as "normal" and it should be able to scale up or down without
reconfiguration.
|
This is not a static configuration, e.g. {A,B,C,D,E}. The only thing that's static is
the primary partition size.
anonymous wrote :
| Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have {A, B, C} on switch S1 and {D, E} on switch
S2, and if S2 fails, does JGroups deliver 2 view changes to {A, B, C} (one without D and
one without both D and E) or just a single view change, without D and E? Assuming FD_SOCK
is used for immediate switch failure detection?
|
Depends. usually you get 2 view changes, sometimes 1. Remember that if a switch goes down,
the TCP connection in FD_SOCK will *not* be closed, so we'd have to rely on FD here.
anonymous wrote :
| If this is the case, can't a split brain threshold be used? I.e., if a view
change is received in which more than N% of members are removed, assume a split brain as
opposed to normal drop-offs?
No, because you can't rely on JGroups excluding all 'dead' members in *1*
view. This depends on the failure detection and group membership protocol impl, and they
might all be different.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4084571#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...