Dimitris Varotsis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as what the user sees when a server that it's trying to access to
> get a readonly volume fails the following is usual scenario: a long delay,
> a 'Lost contact with fileserver xxxx' message on the console and then the
> file gets fetched from the another server. This is assuming that the first
> fileserver contacted didn't respond at all. If the fileserver is up but the
> volume is inaccessible (deleted or off-line) you'll get a 'No such device'
> error. This last case is clearly not the best behavior and I heard that it
> has been fixed in 3.2 (i.e. it will try another server even if the first
> server responds that the volume is not accessible)
This is correct. In the case of a non-existant volume on the primary
read-only server, the cache manager will immediately rotate that
server to the end of its list of servers on which the volume is
believed to reside, and immediately access the successive server.
This condition is stable, until the next "volume cache flush" occurs.
Lyle Transarc 707 Grant Street
412 338 4474 The Gulf Tower Pittsburgh 15219
