From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [87.239.111.99] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565416ECE3; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:18:25 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 565416ECE3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tarantool.org; s=dev; t=1642490305; bh=3WBG5BspcfhYcjndGbjiBzlkAgb71dmd8haPyZt7ZyU=; h=Date:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=bIVZXUE7Pi70ksdHyygUvej/2zQZjRTT71U5+1XHmbjOnI/8sCp8xKnXSgZc4P3cj dSlv345RHYVCsyKc2wklLjtsLggiTVfLOMdN1waBVKUOOHkqrutaSOAsIrrnXDcN2i 9al1VezDnpiruJaL87PjCwTGuROBdljdMb4ryMwQ= Received: from mail-lf1-f51.google.com (mail-lf1-f51.google.com [209.85.167.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66B146ECE3 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:18:23 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 66B146ECE3 Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id bu18so43927165lfb.5 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 23:18:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to; bh=+5PKRM01pzt9Bz5MGiJPZd5wqtIX8Yb7N1M7DEJZVcA=; b=53tda70peTJcVScyrARlTJLfunSCETA9AnwJssvsCVwA8ie1l2m8CsuV9VW9MlsH/O uZjzGMr+++5zBzM5sKqpHGTK7ncqh5P0m3MIw17NjgWZh1GnE6IcyHLaCJzBdXrMssX+ r6mbT+NKXNU2RtPsp1Dr+k8Lo91iAz2zWVGvPwcDoRIcj1Q7/+9FdhQK4lFF+8TL66Rk jwyUrtUbeRYpm+GQV0PXuO5oXcLQ+/RZewswejSyTKHH1jPY+hC75pnMsXihPgTNEihX luiR5ACtxDzQW1of4orTeCfL+CFe5kbnUvzLw+oyGNBs1ARta89X5zWN6HMn3NfRWVAd R19Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5313Ri2Pmu8tMvi42HfELFS0CnxTUAu5sOQ+CiQ8S7Jpp1RrzkyZ MFHy/6LwaTamhiSCQSfZXtknFpfQM32Y X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxITfhr89MYU2GQHNmd7SDej7LO5zm1XIpYdiOveNez+S0Qm9cvDlokwk67qPracMsyY0cFA== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5f0f:: with SMTP id 15mr19849756lfq.462.1642490302569; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 23:18:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from sterling.local ([46.188.68.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t18sm1171011lfr.155.2022.01.17.23.18.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 17 Jan 2022 23:18:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by sterling.local (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 059B7E64986; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:18:20 +0300 (MSK) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:18:20 +0300 To: Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: <20220118071820.GA894591@starling> Mail-Followup-To: Konstantin Osipov , Vladislav Shpilevoy , tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, sergepetrenko@tarantool.org References: <20220116141013.GA121005@starling> <710d8863-afa3-f8ba-7f11-f5c6fadd8882@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <710d8863-afa3-f8ba-7f11-f5c6fadd8882@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 0/4] Split vote X-BeenThere: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches Reply-To: Konstantin Osipov Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Errors-To: tarantool-patches-bounces@dev.tarantool.org Sender: "Tarantool-patches" * Vladislav Shpilevoy [22/01/18 02:16]: > >> Split vote handling in Raft, its usage in storage, and a bug fix found while > >> working on this in the first commit. > >> > >> Branch: http://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/gerold103/gh-5285-raft-split-vote > >> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5285 > > > > While I don't mind this patch it is an unnecessary complication on > > top of the spec. To prevent the deteriorating effects on liveness > > from split vote one needs pre-voting, not split-vote detection. > > I agree. I also don't like that patchset too much (not counting the first > commit, which fixes a crash). The pros are: > > - can save some seconds in case of a split-vote; > > - potentially can expose all the vote counts to the monitoring, not > just own count. > > Cons is - too much hassle in the code just for that. > > Pre-voting on the other hand solves a different problem. Only slightly > related. Well, I don't doubt this hassle is not too harmful to the logic of the protocol, but it's not solving all the liveness issues either. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia