On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> wrote: > --On Tuesday, May 11, 2010 09:45:14 AM -0400 Derrick Brashear > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As part of the work done by Vishal Powar, my Google Summer of Code >> student two years ago, we have the start of readwrite replication in >> RT (http://rt.central.org/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=114116) >> >> It necessarily adds a server to server RPC protocol, which is below. >> However, it is effectively the needed subset of RPCs to create data, >> and the client ViceId of the caller. >> >> I intend to offer a standards proposal for this, instead using the >> signatures of the proposed "RPC refresh" RPCs, again with the client >> ViceIds added, with the idea that an additional Rx "service" is run on >> each fileserver to accept these. >> >> Would this be a reasonable proposal? > > Sounds reasonable. > For a new service, let's start RPC numbers at 1; there's no reason to start > with large values in a service where we don't have to worry about IBM > allocating numbers out-of-process.
I meant to change those to XXX; That was from his reference patch, which used the existing Rx service and just added RPCs, while he was testing. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
