On 3/17/26 14:03, Gordan Bobic via discuss wrote:
I think this might depend on which node(s) you lose If you have 2 fast nodes and one far/slow node, you will commit acknowledgement back once the first node acknowledges the write. So if you lose two near/fast nodes, your 3rd node could actually be behind and you will lose transactions. Are you saying that you observed transaction loss in case of single node failure?
I actually haven't dug that deeply into it--this has been a free-time project and I've had to switch gears back to client work recently. That particular data-loss bug was also harder to trigger, so I only have a few exemplars to go on, and both involved long histories of faults prior to the data-loss event. I can say that both kills (including more than one node at once) and partitions are sufficient, but I'm not totally sure what's *necessary*.
On the P4 side, it looks like Galera allows Lost Update even when there are no faults injected--that's just normal cluster behavior.
Cheers, --Kyle _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
