[erlang-questions] can nodes fail/recover too fast to be seen?

[Gleb Peregud]

If it was an intermittent network issue, TCP can mask the problem and
Erlang would never know about it. And I believe Erlang depends on TCP
and explicit pings to detect dead nodes. But if remote failed node has
been restarted in mean time, Erlang will detect it as, IIRC, it
maintains some kind of "node version" in it's distribution protocol
state.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Sergej Jurecko <sergej.jurecko@REDACTED> wrote:
> Well yes erlang does reconnect, but you still get a nodedown/nodeup message no?
>
>
> Sergej
>
> On Jul 5, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Tim Watson wrote:
>
>> As i understand it, this can and does happen, because erlang does automatic reconnect in order to provide reliable communications.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tim
>>
>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 15:49, Jonathan Leivent <jleivent@REDACTED> wrote:
>>
>>> In Erlang, is it possible for a monitored node to fail and recover so quickly that nodes monitoring it won't detect the failure?  Or, is there some kind of internal persistent state that prevents this?
>>>
>>> If such quick fail/recover without detection cases are possible, I think I have to roll my own monitoring scheme, and not rely on erlang:monitor_node.
>>>
>>> -- Jonathan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions