Jimmy, thanks. I was wrongly expecting my two-server scenario to unfold as if I had only the two of them mentioned in CellServDB, not three... My oversight...
On another hand, it would be nice to have an algorithm allowing the selection of a sync-site even when 2 out of the 3 db servers go down. Thanks again. Edward > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 5:30 AM > To: Nicolescu, Edward L > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] ubik problem in a mixed IBM AFS/OpenAFS > environment > > > "Nicolescu, Edward L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi everybody, > > > > here is the problematic configuration: > > > > 2 afs db servers, > > You have 3 DB-servers at the current timne. > > rafs01.rcf.bnl.gov > rafs02.rcf.bnl.gov > rafs03.rcf.bnl.gov > > Do you want to disable 1 or 2 of them ? > > > as expected, given the lower ip address. However, shutting > down the db > > server processes on the IBM AFS machine, > > causes the other one to loose its ability to act as a sync > site. This should > > not happen as the lowered ip machine > > if you have 2 or 3 VLDB-servers configured and take down 1 > or 2 of them > the last one will refuse to be sync-site, this is how it should work. > > If you want only 1 DB-server which i do NOT recommend, you > have to tell > that server by editing the cellservdb that it is alone. > > > should be able to cast a 1/2 vote in its favor and break > the tie. But this > > doesn't happen in the above configuration. > > > > Any ideas ? If needed, I can provide related udebug and > rxdebug output. > > Thanks. > > not necessary: > > http://www.pdc.kth.se/cgi-bin/survey/ubik?130.199.6.52+130.199 .6.69+130.199.6.51 /Jimmy _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
