Hi Ted, I don't see how one can automate the distinction between a machine that is down because it crashed and a machine that is down because it hasn't started yet. Assuming that we are logging the machine unavailability as we are doing currently, one can always look at the timestamp of the warning and remember that this is the time the machines were bootstrapping. Consequently, I don't really see the point of reducing the number of warnings, unless the warnings are really polluting the logs. I typically don't see so many that prevents me from reading the rest, but you may have a different perception. Also, recall that we back off, so the warnings become less frequent over time. I'm open to ideas, though. If you see anything wrong in my rationale or if you have an idea of how to do it differently, then I'd be happy to hear. However, if the idea is simply to add a parameter that configures the time for leader election to start, then I'm currently not in favor. -Flavio On Aug 18, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
flavio junqueira research scientist [email protected] direct +34 93-183-8828 avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301 |
- Fast leader election initial delay, is that possible? Sampath Perera
- Re: Fast leader election initial delay, is that poss... Ted Dunning
- Re: Fast leader election initial delay, is that ... Sampath Perera
- Re: Fast leader election initial delay, is t... Ted Dunning
- Re: Fast leader election initial delay, ... Ted Dunning
- Re: Fast leader election initial de... Flavio Junqueira
- Re: Fast leader election initia... Sampath Perera
- Re: Fast leader election in... Sampath Perera
- Re: Fast leader election initia... Ted Dunning
- Re: Fast leader election in... Flavio Junqueira
- Re: Fast leader election in... Vishal Kher
- Re: Fast leader election in... Sampath Perera
- Re: Fast leader election in... Sampath Perera
- Re: Fast leader election initial delay, is that poss... Flavio Junqueira
