On 2008 Jul 29, at 3:44, Stephan Wonczak wrote:
While more redundancy (i.e. a third database server) is always a good idea, it is not strictly necessary, much less 'a bad idea to run with two database servers'. Christof probably was thinking about the 'split brain' problem, which does not come into play with the AFS architecture; we are proof against that one. I made a posting about this a while ago; it should be in the archives.
Actually he's thinking about a screw condition that used to happen with voting for a sync site if you have 2 database servers and the lower-IP-numbered one goes missing. I *think* it has been fixed now.
-- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
