Since it looks like an informal vote for what we need
in AFS 3.4 is now underway, I must cast my vote for
having AFS 3.4 servers talk to AFS 3.2 clients. This
was a very good feture of previous versions of AFS.
Silly me, but I figure we should at least not lose
functionality... I can deal with seperate DB servers
and the time out issues mentioned by others if those
in other oganizations over whom I have no control of
their local software setup continue to have access to
my cell...
John Allen
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 18 04:14:11 1995
> To: Info-AFS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: AFS 3.4 and Multi-homed Servers
> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 11:22:13 -0400
> From: Phil Pishioneri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Length: 958
>
> 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
>
