On 29.03.2018 11:43, Janne Johansson wrote: > 2018-03-29 11:39 GMT+02:00 David Rabel <ra...@b1-systems.de>: > >> For example a replicated pool with size 4: Do i always have to set the >> min_size to 3? Or is there a way to use min_size 2 and use some other >> node as a decision maker in case of split brain? >> > > min_size doesn't arbitrate decisions other than > "can I write if there are only X visible copies?", where X needs to be > > min_size > to allow writes. > > It doesn't control any logic, it controls the risk level you want to take.
You are right. But with my above example: If I have min_size 2 and size 4, and because of a network issue the 4 OSDs are split into 2 and 2, is it possible that I have write operations on both sides and therefore have inconsistent data? Yours David -- David Rabel Linux Consultant & Trainer Tel.: +49-1511-5908566 Mail: ra...@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
