Steven Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/24/07, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:15 , Steven Jenkins wrote: >>> - the RO handling is not good -- what happens if the _only_ RO is on >>> the old server and the remsite happens? Clients with existing >> >> remsite is irrelevant: it just informs the vlserver of where an R/O >> replica will be stored in the future, it has no impact whatsoever on >> what R/Os (if any) exist *now*. > > remsite is _very_ relevant for clients that don't already know about > the RO that has been remsite'd -- when they ask the vlserver for the > volume, the vlserver will tell them that only the RW exists.
That sounds like a mis-use of the remsite command, although that is an interesting way to "hide" RO volumes. I assume that a client that gets rebooted / crashes is going to start reading the RW when it comes back up though, right? <<CDC _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
