Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
Hi!
I apologize for persistence. Can you to comment this issue (and issue 57)?
Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com
on 25 Aug 2010 at 1:04
With your test you violate a precondition of Scalaris: Only a minority of
replicas is allowed to fail concurrently. Otherwise strong consistency cannot
be guaranteed.
Original comment by schin...@gmail.com
on 26 Aug 2010 at 10:20
In my test all nodes are ok. The network split is emulated - one node per
partition. The simplest exapmple from the real file - network switch failute.
Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com
on 26 Aug 2010 at 10:26
> The network split is emulated - one node per partition.
By this case I got the result:
> cs_api_v2:range_read(0,0).
{ok,[{12561922216592930516936087995162401722,2,false,0,0},
{182703105677062162248623391711046507450,4,false,0,0},
{267773697407296778114467043568988560314,1,false,0,0},
{97632513946827546382779739853104454586,3,false,0,0}]}
The original problem reproduce steps emulates network splitting case 1+3.
Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com
on 26 Aug 2010 at 10:33
s/real file/real life/
Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com
on 26 Aug 2010 at 12:17
Scalaris currently cannot correctly handle this situation. When the network
splits into two partitions, it will successfully repair the ring in both
partitions. And you will end up with two completely separate rings. In both
rings you will be able to modify the same item and you will end up with
inconsistencies when merging again.
We are still considering different approaches to handle such situations.
Original comment by schu...@gmail.com
on 26 Aug 2010 at 3:59
This issue was closed by revision r1351.
Original comment by schin...@gmail.com
on 12 Jan 2011 at 6:43
It is not fixed. Sorry. My commit message for r1351 was wrong.
Original comment by schin...@gmail.com
on 12 Jan 2011 at 6:54
Original comment by nico.kru...@googlemail.com
on 12 Jan 2011 at 8:40
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
serge.po...@gmail.com
on 10 Aug 2010 at 3:31