Please re-read the code. It does not 'relax anything'. > -----Original Message----- > From: Liu Yuan [mailto:namei.unix at gmail.com] > Sent: Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2012 09:07 > To: Dietmar Maurer > Cc: sheepdog-users at lists.wpkg.org > Subject: Re: [sheepdog-users] is --nohalt dangerous? > > On 07/18/2012 03:03 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote: > > So maybe the following would make --nohalt a bit safer? > > > > diff --git a/sheep/group.c b/sheep/group.c index 059656e..e9e2861 > > 100644 > > --- a/sheep/group.c > > +++ b/sheep/group.c > > @@ -1079,6 +1079,9 @@ void sd_leave_handler(struct sd_node *left, > struct sd_node > > if (sys_can_halt()) { > > if (current_vnode_info->nr_zones < sys->nr_copies) > > sys_stat_set(SD_STATUS_HALT); > > + } else { > > + if (current_vnode_info->nr_zones <= (sys->nr_copies/2)) > > + sys_stat_set(SD_STATUS_HALT); > > } > > > > sockfd_cache_del(&left->nid); > > I don't think we should relax the halt condition, nr_zones >= nr_copies is the > safest condition. > > Thanks, > Yuan > |