In message <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603261311520.5686@???>, Alan
J. Flavell <a.flavell@???> writes
>In discussing doing something against the abuse, we have at times
>toyed with the idea of the secondary verifying that the primary is
>basically "up" and, if it is, responding to the caller with a "defer",
>rather than proceeding with the transaction. The intention being
>that the caller should retry the primary host later. We never really
>tried it out in production, though.
Unless the secondary is very close by (in network terms) this would be
unwise ...
You would penalise remote sites whose connectivity to your primary was
significantly worse than their ability to swap traffic with your
secondary. With asymmetric routing of traffic and overloaded links, this
is far from uncommon.
- --
richard Richard Clayton
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
