On Thursday 07 October 2004 12:08, Lon Hohberger wrote: > On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 02:07, David Teigland wrote: > > Using DLM locks is a third way you might > > solve this problem without using SM or RM; I don't understand the > > details of how that might work yet but it sounds interesting. > > It's primarily because it assumes that the DLM or GuLM can ensure > that only one exclusive lock is granted at a time. Because of this, > the holder of the lock would thereby become the csnap master server, > and the old master will either have been fenced or relinquished its > duties willfully (and thus is no longer a threat). Suppose that the winner of the race to get the exclusive lock is a bad choice to run the server. Perhaps it has a fast connection to the net but is connected to the disk over the network instead of directly like the other nodes. How do you fix that, within this model? Regards, Daniel
