Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:25:23 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 208681] [patch] CARP preemption explanation is misleading Message-ID: <bug-208681-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208681 Bug ID: 208681 Summary: [patch] CARP preemption explanation is misleading Product: Documentation Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Keywords: patch Severity: Affects Some People Priority: --- Component: Documentation Assignee: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Reporter: philipp@copythat.de Keywords: patch Created attachment 169161 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=169161&action=edit clarified proposal for the preemption note The handbook states in a note on CARP: > If preemption has been enabled, hostc.example.org might not release the virtual IP > address back to the original master server. The preemption setting does the opposite of what I would interpret this sentence to convey. Preemption needs to be enabled in order for the system with a lower advskew value (the original master) to take the address back. In writing this, I wonder if it also needs a sentence on where to enable preemption (master, backup or both...). I'd assume there are very few scenarios, where different settings on nodes in the same group would be useful or necessary. I have attached a proposed change for this note. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-208681-9>