From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree Subject: Re: ECONNREFUSED implies OSD definitely failed Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:32:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20160429123241.GJ1541@suse.de> References: <20160428143251.GA1541@suse.de> <20160429074639.GG26146@predictor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54025 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752176AbcD2Mcp (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 08:32:45 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71604AC15 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 2016-04-29T08:29:59, Sage Weil wrote: > > I'm not convinced that we should care about this. I think that prob= ability > > of (re)connect event occurrence during firewall reconfiguration is = quite > > low. > Yeah, I tend to agree. >=20 > Let's just add a config option to control the new behavior so that if= , for=20 > some reason, there is an environment where this does happen the fast-= fail=20 > can be disabled. Also agreed. Just wanted to add the cases where I've seen these happen - and indeed, they are pretty obscure cases that shouldn't happen. --=20 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imend=F6rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,= HRB 21284 (AG N=FCrnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wil= de -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html