Live data from Hacker News

Reply to Aphyr attack on Redis Sentinel

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: Reply to Aphyr attack on Redis Sentinel

#41

Post by aphyr » Thu, May 23, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

contingencies wrote: post #40

aphyr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same limitations as any asynchronously replicated system; if both nodes diverge during a partition, you'll probably have to drop one's writes. http://aphyr.com/posts/287-asynchronous-replication-with-fai...

Right. By operating at the block level it's a little more portable than most of the solutions discussed, though. Worth people's consideration, IMHO.

I'm inclined to think just the opposite. It's often possible to recover divergent data structures logically. Good luck doing that on an arbitrary block store.

Re: Reply to Aphyr attack on Redis Sentinel

#42

Post by contingencies » Thu, May 23, 2013, 11:49 PM UTC

aphyr wrote: post #41

contingencies wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. By operating at the block level it's a little more portable than most of the solutions discussed, though. Worth people's consideration, IMHO.

I'm inclined to think just the opposite. It's often possible to recover divergent data structures logically. Good luck doing that on an arbitrary block store.

My impression is that most DRBD setups are such that the backing volume is marked to recall which node last had 'master' (ie. write capacity), thus avoids this issue. However, to achieve this reliably it needs out of band STONITH (shoot-the-other-node-in-the-head), eg. IPMI.

Post reply on HN