[mysql-dde] Re: Connection Fail
- From: "Peter B. Volk" <PeterB.Volk@xxxxxxx>
- To: <mysql-dde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:30:58 +0100
Hey,
well S3 could perform operations but either S1 or S2 would not be able to do
so. An idea would be to use S3 as a kind of a proxy since it can query alll
servers. So S1 would receive a query but since it is not in the majority group
but it can talk with someone in the majority then S1 would send the query to S3
and S3 could execute the query as it its origin was from S3.
Now using the servers a proxies for this type of error should be something like
v2 or something like that.
What do you think?
----- Original Message -----
From: Fabricio Mota
To: mysql-dde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 12:57 AM
Subject: [mysql-dde] Re: Connection Fail
Ok, Peter.
Your idea works. But don't you think that we could be losing availability
unnecessarily? That's because, once both S1 and S2 are available for S3, S3
could be able to perform operations, although it is prohibited.
FM
Hey Peter,
I was thinking a bit more about connection liveness and server liveness
management, and I've got another problem: visibility is a bidiretional
property.
That is: suppose a cluster with 3 servers, S1, S2 and S3. At the first
moment, everybody sees everybody.
But in a second moment, due a network transient, S1 stops to see S2,
although S2 still sees S1. That means, only connection from S1 (as client) to
S2 (as server) failed. So, I think that there are no Islands here, only a
non-complete graph will be found.
Of course, S3 will not be prohibited to perform any operation, because
it completely sees everybody.
But what about S1 and S2?
Well, if we (eventually) consider to use any billateral management, so
S2 will be also able to perform operations origined by it. That's because it
also sees everybody.
But S1 will try perform active-cluster operations under
late-synchronization proceeding. So, it will do that is needed communicating
with S3, and could save a buffer to inform modifications to S2 later.
It could be dangerous if we imagine a RDD updating example, as above:
1. S1 updates MyRDDTable, because it is protected under
majority-criteria law.
1.1 S1 updates itself;
1.2 S1 sends update command to S3;
1.3 S1 creates a buffer (late sync) for when S2 come active again;
2. And a little after, S2 try to update MyRDDTable, since it is
protected under majority-criteria law, too.
1.1 S2 updates itself (before to receive buffered command from S1,
it's very bad!);
1.2 S2 sends update command to S3;
1.3 S2 sends update command to S1 (ishhhh);
How do you suggest to solve it?
[Peter] Hmmm good question. Once S1 doesnt see S2 anymore S2 is
suspected by S1 to be down and communicates this to S3 since S3 can see all of
them ther is a classification of this error -> networkerror. Then S1-3 should
decide on who should be taken out of the cluster S1 or S2.
How does that sound?
Peter
--
Sem mais,
Fabricio Mota
Oda Mae Brown - Aprecie sem moderação.
http://www.odamaebrown.com.br
--
Sem mais,
Fabricio Mota
Oda Mae Brown - Aprecie sem moderação.
http://www.odamaebrown.com.br
MySql-DDE discussion list
www.freelists.org/
Other related posts:
