[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
> > > There is a real need to be able to maintain multiple cells with shared
> > > volumes. Administratively, these cells would be the same -- they would
> > > only be different from the point of view of the db servers and their
> > > quorum mechanism.
>
> > i couldn't agree with this more. this is one of the core problems
> > we've attempted to address as we deploy afs worldwide across our
> > internal wan.
>
> Would the availability of read-only access to database servers without
> quorum alter your statements?
Probably. The concern is to be able to run with a highly distributed
network (i.e. very much not a campus where all machines are well
networked and a majority of databse servers are within the local lan
cluster) and not have your programs go south in case of a failure.
Imagine, if you will, that you couldn't execute one of the network
diagnostic programs at the paris office because your link to New York
went down -- very annoying indeed!
> In other words, are y'all (those of you who are, that is) suggesting
> transparent cross-cell volumes as a mechanism for dealing with this
> database problem? Which, if it didn't exist, would prompt you to simply
> use a single cell?
Very likely yes. If you could still operate read only without a quorum
things would probably not be as problematic.
(It would still be neat to be able to share volumes across cells, but
certainly no longer necessary.)
Perry
