On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:32:38AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote: > But do you really think the dlm should pretend that a potentially > corrupt value is in fact good? This seems like a very bad idea to me. > In return for saving some bookkeeping in the very special case where you > have an incrementing lvb, you suggest imposing extra overhead on every > lvb update and having the dlm make false promises about data integrity. > I don't think this is a good trade. Incorrect. Nothing is corrupt, there's no "false promise", there's no overhead to speak of, and restoring the last available value is standard behavior. -- Dave Teigland <teigland@xxxxxxxxxx>
