Re: [OpenAFS] AFS lag

[Kim Kimball]

Derrick Brashear wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Ken Hornstein <k...@cmf.nrl.navy.mil> wrote: I'm no ubik engineer, but as far as I understand it, the protocol was not designed for even numbers of participating servers. For best results, three or five servers seem to be optimum. I hear this frequently, and don't see why it should be true.  The tie breaking mechanism during an election is simple. Kim There is a lot of misinformation about Ubik out there; the voting protocol is actually not complicated, it's just not documented well. it's actually well-documented, if you find Kazar's paper on Quorum Completion. If your database servers are accessable via the Internet, we could take a look at them via udebug.  Really, there are only a few things that can go wrong; of all of the pieces of AFS, I think Ubik is one of the most bulletproof. There are a couple (unlikely) open issues; See RT. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info