[tahoe-dev] split brain? how handled in tahoe -- docs?

[Two Spirit]

in split brain scenario, wouldn't both halves have write capabilities?
unless you made some requirement that more than half of the nodes needed to
be up in order to write.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:

> On 2012-08-07 5:16 PM, Two Spirit wrote:
>
>> Since when is lost data considered highly RELIABLE storage? It isn't
>> storage if it doesn't store. in my eyes vanishing data is not acceptable
>> storage. double penalty to guy who worked hard to finish early, since the
>> one who wrote last wins. we might as well rename it to "lossy storage" or
>> "leakage" instead of storage. the issue is not HA because both halves
>> believe both sides is operational and no data is lost. Is it not true that
>> a user's expectation is that what they put into the file system, they
>> should get back from the file system unless there is an error?
>>
>> you know that feeling you get when you start hearing the hard drive make
>> clicking noises because you know that there is a chance you might loose
>> data? not worth it, you don't risk it, dump the drive and get something
>> that works.  I would at least well document this limitation, so the newbie
>> who is considering using it knows what he is getting into and if it is a
>> real concern for their needs or not.
>>
>
> This is not a problem if only one entity should ever have the write
> capability for a file, which is desirable for other reasons.
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> tahoe-dev mailing list
> tahoe-dev at tahoe-lafs.org
> https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev<https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/attachments/20120807/c6559b9c/attachment.html>