[erlang-questions] Distributed application and netsplit

Raoul Duke <>
Tue Nov 18 23:08:02 CET 2014

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Felix Gallo <> wrote:
> We're out of CAP world anyway (see my second sentence in that paragraph) so
> all bets are off.
> It's more consistent for it to have a single behavior in the event of a
> cluster membership change (master/slave failover/takeover), rather than to
> have two separate behaviors (master/slave failover/takeover on node loss, or
> master/master split-brain on netsplit).  So that would be "better" and
> easier to design against.

er, i still don't get it. if all bets are off then why should the
toolkit/framework be choosing sides?

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list