I'm no ubik engineer, but as far as I understand it, the protocol
was not designed for even numbers of participating servers. For best
results, three or five servers seem to be optimum.
I hear this frequently, and don't see why it should be true. The tie
breaking mechanism during an election is
Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Ken Hornstein k...@cmf.nrl.navy.mil wrote:
I'm no ubik engineer, but as far as I understand it, the protocol was not
designed for even numbers of participating servers. For best results, three
or five servers seem to
There is a lot of misinformation about Ubik out there; the voting
protocol is actually not complicated, it's just not documented well.
it's actually well-documented, if you find Kazar's paper on Quorum Completion.
You know, we should try to find a copy of that and put it somewhere useful.
From
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Abdelkader El mastour wrote:
Configuration
Netbsd4
heimdal1.1
arla
You have Arla clients?
Openafs 1.4.5 via pkgsrc
replicated root.afs root.cell RO
1000 user per server
10 servers for fileserver.
2 servers for vlserver and ptserver
This is not good. I've recently
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Derrick Brashear sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Abdelkader El mastour
a.elmast...@gmail.com wrote:
Configuration
Netbsd4
heimdal1.1
arla
Openafs 1.4.5 via pkgsrc
replicated root.afs root.cell RO
1000 user per server
-ad...@openafs.org [mailto:
openafs-info-ad...@openafs.org] On Behalf Of Felix Frank
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:15 AM
To: Abdelkader El mastour
Cc: openafs-info@openafs.org
Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] AFS lag
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Abdelkader El mastour wrote:
Configuration
Netbsd4
I agree with Abdelkader and would recommend having at least 3 database
servers. You could be walking on very thin ice with just 2.
Whats the reason for this ?
I'm no ubik engineer, but as far as I understand it, the protocol was not
designed for even numbers of participating servers. For best
I'm no ubik engineer, but as far as I understand it, the protocol was not
designed for even numbers of participating servers. For best results, three
or five servers seem to be optimum.
There is a lot of misinformation about Ubik out there; the voting
protocol is actually not complicated, it's
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Ken Hornstein k...@cmf.nrl.navy.mil wrote:
I'm no ubik engineer, but as far as I understand it, the protocol was not
designed for even numbers of participating servers. For best results, three
or five servers seem to be optimum.
There is a lot of misinformation
