On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:35:22 -0700 Rick Stevens <ricks@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On re-reading my response, it seemed unintentionally harsh. I didn't > mean any disrespect, sir. I was simply questioning the concept that a > reconfiguration of a cluster shouldn't be required when, indeed the > cluster was being reconfigured. The other response I saw to this > thread regarding planning, and things such as last-man-standing was > much better worded. > > My apologies if it seemed I was jumping down your throat. I wasn't. Come on, no problem at all. We are just discussing, we are not shooting each other with rifles :) If I deserve harsh words, be free to land them on me :) PS.: There is quorum, there is qdisk, so last-man-standing issue is solved, planned whatever. Maybe I wasn't makin' myself clear... -- | Jakov Sosic | ICQ: 28410271 | PGP: 0x965CAE2D | ================================================================= | start fighting cancer -> http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ | -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
