You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I know that the code doesn't mentioned, or not really design for fault tolerance. Though I think there's a problem if it's going to be used on a cluster where fault tolerance might be a requirement.
If there's a call as such,
node 1 (count 1) --> check for count --> not equal --> exit
node 2 (count 2) --> check for count --> not equal --> exit
node 3 (count 3) --> (crash)
Note: time denoted by the amount of space in between, with going right means time are advancing.
In this instance, there's no node that will call the callback, thus rendering the process on a stuck state.
I'm still thinking of a solution for this problem, maybe do you have any idea how to make it more fault tolerant?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I know that the code doesn't mentioned, or not really design for fault tolerance. Though I think there's a problem if it's going to be used on a cluster where fault tolerance might be a requirement.
If there's a call as such,
node 1 (count 1) --> check for count --> not equal --> exit
node 2 (count 2) --> check for count --> not equal --> exit
node 3 (count 3) --> (crash)
Note: time denoted by the amount of space in between, with going right means time are advancing.
In this instance, there's no node that will call the callback, thus rendering the process on a stuck state.
I'm still thinking of a solution for this problem, maybe do you have any idea how to make it more fault tolerant?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: