On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jared Cantwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> Thanks Ted. So based on this it seems like you'd have to go from 1 to 2 > servers, and then from 2 to 3 servers, 3 to 5, 5 to 9, etc., right? > No. I would avoid even numbers. I would go 1 to 3 (but one is missing initially). Counting active servers would give the sequence you say, but the configurations would say first 1, then 3 and conceptually, you are moving from one server to three with no intermediate configuraiton. > > This is what we have designed and are testing, although it doesn't seem to > always be so smooth. Sometimes the servers seem to get "stuck" on the > restart-- we're trying to collect more details. > Even number cluster sizes are evil.
