Re: Question about membership_compute_and_validate:

Kashif Shaikh wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I wish there was a failsafe-devel list, but since there isn't here it
> goes:
> 
> I've been looking into Failsafe's membership algorithm(in the routine on
> subject line), and what's interesting about it is that it takes into
> account link failures resulting in directly and indirectly connected
> nodes and generating membership combination sets, so that a biggest
> membership set can be found that the majority will agree upon.
> 
> My question is this: how is it possible to have link failures resulting
> in having directly/indirectly connected set of nodes?  I mean, no one
> really uses token-ring or 10-base-T in ring-topology, but rather
> networks are Ethernet based and nodes are usually connected to a
> cascaded hub/switch setup in star-topology.  So when the link between
> node and hub/switch fails, no one else can ping the node which thus
> concludes we will never have a node indirectly connected!
> 
> My reason for asking this question was a result of, 'whoa...is a complex
> membership algorithm to compute membership of directly connected nodes
> from a set of directly/indirectly connected nodes really needed these
> days? Overkill?'.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, can anyone of the developers
> (Paddy,Lars,etc) shed some additional insight? TIA!

There can be software failures. Due to bugs, packets can be
sent but not received by a server.

It is unlikely to see hardware causing such
failures.

Paddy
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kashif Shaikh
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxFailSafe mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxfailsafe