On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 11:28 +0900, yusuke iida wrote: > Hi, Jiaju > > 2013/1/11 Jiaju Zhang <jjzh...@suse.de>: > > Hi Yusuke, > > > > Sorry for the late reply;) > > > > On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 13:50 +0900, yusuke iida wrote: > >> Hi, Jiaju > >> > >> When the proposal was conflict, I want to keep on the site of the > >> original lease. > >> I do not want to generate a revoke when maintained. > >> > >> > >> I made a patch according to a thought of "5.2 Master lease" described > >> in the next article. > >> It means that it prevents you from accepting new suggestion until a > >> time limit of lease expires. > > > > Exactly. > > > >> > >> http://www.read.seas.harvard.edu/~kohler/class/08w-dsi/chandra07paxos.pdf > >> > >> Is there anything wrong with this idea? > > > > This idea is totally right. But we have already implemented it. When the > > master exists and is still in its lease, if some other one wants to be > > the master and sent the "prepare" message, the acceptor will told him > > "oh, we have already had a master" by setting "hdr->leased = 1" in his > > respond message, actually this is a rejection, then the one trying to be > > master won't succeed. > I understand these specifications. > However, by the present specification, when returning "hdr->leased = > 1", "highest_promised" is updated by ballot of new "prepare". > When "highest_promised" is updated, reaccession of lease is carried > out in original masters. > Since revoke is performed at this time, the node which the resource > was start(ing) is STONITH(ed) by loss-policy=fence. > As for this, the stop of temporary service happens. > To avoid this, I've implemented the change not to do to re-acquire the lease.
Understood, this is an important fix. However, it seems that there is an easier way to fix this, just change the return value of "lease_promise", that is to say, return -1 when having leased. I'm inclined to do so because the new function "lease_is_leased" basically did the same thing with "lease_promise", but "lease_promise" returned a wrong value currently. What do you think?;) BTW, don't forget to add your Signed-off-by line and check the patch with checkpatch.pl, this will make booth to use the same coding style;) Thanks, Jiaju _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
