From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Clements Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] md bitmap bug fixes Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:58:56 -0500 Message-ID: <423F2780.5000601@steeleye.com> References: <16950.5692.594941.130741@cse.unsw.edu.au> <20050318103326.GA18819@marowsky-bree.de> <6ivqg2-qsn.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es> <20050318134255.GS18819@marowsky-bree.de> <7e6rg2-pj1.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es> <423B09EF.8070708@steeleye.com> <23krg2-4rr.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es> <423B2F7C.3030907@steeleye.com> <423EF12A.4030207@steeleye.com> <20050321185606.GA27541@percy.comedia.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20050321185606.GA27541@percy.comedia.it> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Luca Berra wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:07:06AM -0500, Paul Clements wrote: > >> All I'm saying is that in a split-brain scenario, typical cluster >> frameworks will make two (or more) systems active at the same time. This > > I sincerely hope not. Perhaps my choice of wording was not the best? I probably should have said, "there is no foolproof way to guarantee that two systems are not active." Software fails, human beings make mistakes, and surely even STONITH devices can be misconfigured or can fail (or cannot be used for one reason or another). At any rate, this is all irrelevant given the second part of that email reply that I gave. You still have to do the bitmap combining, regardless of whether two systems were active at the same time or not. -- Paul