Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
}>There are a number of reasons why either can be more useful to a specific
}>site. We switched from the MIT kerberos server to the AFS kaserver several
}>years ago because we found it more reliable for our larger site. The AFS
}>kaserver uses "ubik" to keep the replicated security servers in sinc. This
}>is much more robust then what the MIT kerberos server does.
}This was pretty bad with the V4 database code, but _if_ you use V5 and
}you use the btree database backend, then this is a lot better. And one
}of these days I'm going to get incremental database updating done ....
Hmmm, we've been using Kerberos since 1990 and
we currently have 38,608 principals (36,240 users).
All this time we've never had a hitch with V4
(and the only times our slave server has really
seen any use is when doing an upgrade on the
master, so the lack of an incremental database
update hasn't been an issue for us).
John
--
John Hascall, Software Engr. Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you
ISU Computation Center demanded are now mandatory. -Jello Biafra
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cc.iastate.edu/staff/systems/john/welcome.html <-- the usual crud
