Created attachment 169161 [details]
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.
I agree fully, the man page's text is the exact opposite, or it is very hard to interpret, which is just as bad. Please commit this, someone. :)
A commit references this bug:
Date: Tue May 22 14:33:42 UTC 2018
New revision: 51703
CARP preemption explanation is misleading
Submitted by: philipp AT copythat de
Approved by: bcr (mentor)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D15519
Committed, thank you for the patch.