On Wed, 12 Jul 1995 10:23:55 +0200 (MET DST) John O Neall wrote:
>
> Please increase the priority of multi-homed database servers. Otherwise,
> we'd be obliged to set up machines which are ONLY DB servers and that
> costs money. We need the multi-homing on the file servers because even ATM
> is finite, so we have one towards our tape servers (accessing 6 Storagetek
> ACLs) and one towards the batch clients.
If we're voting, I think we'd like to see the problem of "time outs" [1]
corrected before that of multi-home db servers. While the solution
of separate db servers does cost money, at least it's easily solved.
[1] The problem (mentioned before on this list) where an application
receives an ETIMEDOUT (errno==78) because an AFS client has lost
contact with a fileserver. We'd like to see an AFS client act similarly
to an NFS client which has mounted a filesystem with the "hard,intr"
options.
-Phil Cornell Theory Center
