On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jared Cantwell <jared.cantwell@gmail.com>wrote:
> Thanks Ted. So based on this it seems like you'd have to go from 1 to 2
> servers, and then from 2 to 3 servers, 3 to 5, 5 to 9, etc., right?
>
No. I would avoid even numbers. I would go 1 to 3 (but one is missing
initially). Counting
active servers would give the sequence you say, but the configurations would
say first 1, then
3 and conceptually, you are moving from one server to three with no
intermediate configuraiton.
>
> This is what we have designed and are testing, although it doesn't seem to
> always be so smooth. Sometimes the servers seem to get "stuck" on the
> restart-- we're trying to collect more details.
>
Even number cluster sizes are evil.
|