On Jun 26, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Adam Megacz wrote:
Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
the problem is it lives in the volume group of its parent, so it's a
halfling. parent's gone, but... yeah, like you say
While we're on the topic, what is the reason for having volume groups
in the first place rather than just having a reference in the volume
header saying "I am a backup volume for volume XYZ" to establish
volume relationships?
Oh man, Dan and I came up with all sorts of scenarios about what
volume groups are. I believe that we ultimately decided that to make
them really useful, you'd have to add some stuff to the vldb and that
a great deal of parent/child volume tracking would have to be cleaned
up in the current code. In the end we opted to do minimal change to
the current code until/if there was a clearer purpose and use for them.
Is the "volume numbers share all but the last three bits" criterion
visible to the cache manager, or is this something that could be
altered just on the servers and admin clients (vos, bos, etc)?
Good question. Given the possibility of hanging clones and the
utility we see for having clones of clones (get around the 7-clone
limit in namei, albeit at major cost of disk space), I don't see how
one can avoid having to make the cache managers deal with it at some
level.
Steve
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
