I used the word 'gravitation' also for backup data, may be improperly. anonymous wrote : | cache[1] also now sees /_BUDDY_BACKUP_/192.168.0.4_33266/three since cache[2] realises that it doesn't have a backup anywhere anymore, and hence assigns cache[1] as it's new backup node with it's state. | This movement of the primary data that are without backup can cause a "network storm", but this is inevitable. Why there isn't an equivalent movement for the backup data that are without primary (e.g. /_BUDDY_BACKUP_/192.168.0.4_33266/one on cache[1]) ? My major concern is not related to the "network storm" but to the fact that in case of multiple faults the cluster has information loss. For example: Let suppose that first the cache[0] dies and then after one minute also the cache[1] dies. In this case the data stored in the node /one is lost forever. Thanks and regards gianluca -- Gianluca Puggelli skype:pugg1138 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4003705#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...