From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <df49a7370904280817i63288a5am75dee3a3748ac82f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13426df10904271740x193e2987r86cd11ca840c2080@mail.gmail.com>
	<df49a7370904280205q7b215213m215aaf5e53d7bd5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<13426df10904280729i4b91c1ebi20d75fc59a64f94c@mail.gmail.com>
	<df49a7370904280817i63288a5am75dee3a3748ac82f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:38:23 -0700
Message-ID: <13426df10904280838x40638907v1ab702adc084daf2@mail.gmail.com>
From: ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] just in case anyone has written this
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f41a75da-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:17 AM, roger peppe <rogpeppe@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 guess it depends
> how often incoming lines arrive.

Sure.

And things will always go wrong. Anything designed for things going
well will fail.

ron