On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:49:51 -0400 Jeff Blaine <jbla...@kickflop.net> wrote:
> The "lowest IP address" favoritism decision is totally > arbitrary, no? I'd say "mostly" rather than "totally". I think it is slightly true that more important/reliable machines tend to be lower IPs. Or that at least was true at some point. As far as the protocol goes, though, yes, it's arbitrary; the factor deciding the "best" site can be anything, as long as all sites agree who the "best" is. > We're kind of screwed unless there's a way around it, > and really would not like to have to apply a local patch > with every rollout. So, is the lowest IP in this setup just really unreliable? I'm not aware of many situations in which this limitation is a show-stopper. > Would a "favor highest" patch be accepted if it was controlled > via configure script, defaulting to the traditional behavior? >From what I remember of long-ago conversations, the most desirable way to do this is to make the "best" site (or rather, the ranking of sites from best to worst) runtime configurable and arbitrary. That is, you specify the list of sites explicitly in order of preference, as opposed to having several pre-set algorithms or something. I'm not sure if anyone has code or a more specific design than that. I'm not sure what degree of sanity checking would be required before something like this is acceptable... since if the sites disagree about who is "best", you will be sad iirc, and currently I don't think we have a way to check that over the wire. -- Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info