On 27 Jan 2003, Steffen Neumann wrote: > > > or do you 2) *expect* them to be inconsistent simply because one > > > was down for some time ?
> I think you don't trust coda enough that it could handle this > situation itself, but I am pretty sure it does. Sure it does. I have (inadvertently) been there sometime, not noticing that one of the servers was down :) A pitfall is that you do not want to have a server down for a long time, as the alive server's modification log can be overflowed (say when many files get modified). > please correct me if I get this wrong, I have no experience > with multiple server installations. In case I got this right, > it could go into some manual or docs ?) > Server1 Server2 > online online [skipped] I think your descripton is pretty good. > So again, if one server is down, > replication is automagic. <paranoia on> Just remember that it is "lazy" i.e. it may strike in cases when a client accesses a file during a network outage or when the other server is down. The same applies for making backup volume clones, you may ls -R before creating them to ensure you have got the latest file generations. <paranoia off> Regards, -- Ivan
