[erlang-questions] Distributed application and netsplit

[Felix Gallo]

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.

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Raoul Duke <raould@REDACTED> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Felix Gallo <felixgallo@REDACTED> wrote:
> > It's possible that the takeover logic wasn't implemented on network
> > partition heal because there's no obviously right thing to do in the
> generic
> > case when two nodes believing themselves to be masters in a distributed
> > system discover that they have independently been making progress owing
> to a
> > network partition.  On the other hand, the master/slave system creates
> data
> > loss anyway on node failure.  So I would personally call what you have
> found
> > a bug, and try to make a minimum example case and see if anyone from OTP
> is
> > paying attention.
>
>
> how is it a bug when, "there's no obviously right thing to do"? (not
> snarky, just confused/curious/clueless.)
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20141118/15e4315f/attachment.htm>