From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <1290fbc2f105eee30cfc1907c907194b@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:41:02 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <14ec7b180904280832x2b2338e4sc5ed5be282f491e5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] just in case anyone has written this
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f4212e8e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > if one node is just slow enough in responding that it
> > falls outside the timeout, you could get an annoying situation
> > where that node is out-of-step forever after.
>

i fought some socket mgmt software for a few years that did
timeouts and rollup like this.  it seemed to me that between timeouts and
retransmission one could not dig oneself out of the hole without
a proper protocol.  and doing it on top of tcp was impossible.

> worse yet, nodes may be sending more than one line at a time,
> circumventing the aggregator. if they do it fast enough it becomes a
> real mess and there's no amount of lookback one can do to ensure this
> isn't happening :)

but even if it logs the message once, your disk full message will appear
in n*2 seconds.

do we need to take up a collection to get you some disks?

- erik