From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:31:10 +0200 From: Lars Ellenberg To: drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] Another drbd race Message-ID: <20040908113110.GA10017@nudl> References: <20040819110202.GO9601@marowsky-bree.de> <200409071419.55799.philipp.reisner@linbit.com> <20040907122840.GA15272@marowsky-bree.de> <200409071447.45785.philipp.reisner@linbit.com> <20040908112001.GD20844@marowsky-bree.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040908112001.GD20844@marowsky-bree.de> List-Id: Coordination of development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 01:20:01PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2004-09-07T14:47:45, > Philipp Reisner said: > > > No. It would be better to have a "drbdadm fence r0" operation on N2! > > The "drbdadm fence r0" command would only set the "Outdated" flag. > > Well, it's automatically supposed to assume it's outdated when it > crashes in S-P mode. > > When the secondary loses connection to the primary, a mark-peer-dead > would prevent that flag from being set. > > So, why an explicit drbdadm fence operation? I'm missing what that would > catch. we probably can cope without, but it is more "polite" if we have it. if we _can_ handle it explicit, why not? implicit things are more easy to overlook... and: P --- S P xxx S link breaks [ you can insert here even a complete cluster crash ] X xxx S N2 receives "Peer dead", but still is outdated. the point is: just receiving a "peer definetely dead" in S/? is not enough to know that we are not outdated. lge