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. > > 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. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
