>does it even make sense to have filesystem-master and filesystem-slave in this case? Would switching master nodes not create a problem?
exactly, it wouldn't work at all. Making that clearer now.

>Btw, why would one stick to jgroupsMaster/Slave when the jgroups setup seems easier/better?
Mainly because _jgroups_ backend is experimental, but also I think there might be cases in which you want to be in control about which node is the one applying the writes: if the rest of your architecture allows it, it would be best to direct most write operations to that node directly. Or simply to know where to best trigger a MassIndexer run from JMX..


> Are we even discouraging jgroupsMaster/Slave now?
No I think jgroupsMaster/Slave are still good for static configurations; very easy to maintain them anyway.