John Hascall wrote:
>>> Ubik is an elected-master protocol. All updates go to the master
>>> which replicates. If the master goes away, after a while the
>>> remaining nodes notice and revote a new master (this can take a while).
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that model works well with the KDC's single-th
> You do not. Each transaction can be mastered by whichever
> node it starts out on. As soon as it has >50% acks to the
> prepare, it can issue the commits. At the same time another
> node can be mastering a different transaction.
Fair enough; I stand corrected.
--Ken
_
> Date:Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:52:59 EDT
> To: John Hascall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], kerberos@mit.edu
> From:Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT Incremental Propagation
>
> On Sep 21, 2007, at 16:08, John Hascal
> >Ubik is an elected-master protocol. All updates go to the master
> >which replicates. If the master goes away, after a while the
> >remaining nodes notice and revote a new master (this can take a while).
> >
> >I'm not sure that model works well with the KDC's single-threadedness.
> >
> >I ex
>Ubik is an elected-master protocol. All updates go to the master
>which replicates. If the master goes away, after a while the
>remaining nodes notice and revote a new master (this can take a while).
>
>I'm not sure that model works well with the KDC's single-threadedness.
>
>I expect a 3-phase
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kevin Coffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Harris wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
> > > incremental propagation? I know it didn't a l
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 04:46:40PM -0500, John Hascall wrote:
> I'm not sure that model works well with the KDC's single-threadedness.
Which, really, should be multi-threaded...
Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.ed
> Yes, that's exactly right. At least, in theory; I haven't tried it.
> Using the LDAP back end -- ah, as I see Nico was just saying -- will
> get you a common database shared across the KDCs, and leaves the
> replication mechanism, if any, to the LDAP administrator.
>
> Building somethin
On 9/21/07, John Hascall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > John Harris wrote:
> > > Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
> > > incremental propagation? I know it didn't a long time ago, then there
> > > were CITI patches for it, then those didn't work for awhile. I don't
>
On Sep 21, 2007, at 16:08, John Hascall wrote:
> I haven't studied it all that extensively,
> so correct me if I am wrong, but with the
> new "DAL" stuff there is now an opportunity
> to do a 'proper' job of multi-master KDCs
> (dare I say it) in a "ubik-like" or "AD-like"
> manner.
Yes, that's ex
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:29:16PM -0500, John Hascall wrote:
> > There are plenty of LDAP servers suitable for backending the KDC that
> > support incremental and/or multi-master replication.
>
> That, I suppose, depends on your definition of "suitable".
> It certainly isn't suitable to me. The
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:54:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>> John Harris wrote:
>>> Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
>>> incremental propagation? I know it didn't a long time ago, then there
>>> were CITI patches
On 9/21/07, Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Harris wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
> > incremental propagation? I know it didn't a long time ago, then there
> > were CITI patches for it, then those didn't work for awhile.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:54:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> John Harris wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
> > incremental propagation? I know it didn't a long time ago, then there
> > were CITI patches for it, then those didn't work
> > I haven't studied it all that extensively,
> > so correct me if I am wrong, but with the
> > new "DAL" stuff there is now an opportunity
> > to do a 'proper' job of multi-master KDCs
> > (dare I say it) in a "ubik-like" or "AD-like"
> > manner.
> There are plenty of LDAP servers suitable for
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:08:26PM -0500, John Hascall wrote:
> > > Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
> > > incremental propagation? I know it didn't a long time ago, then there
> > > were CITI patches for it, then those didn't work for awhile. I don't
> > > seem to
> John Harris wrote:
> > Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
> > incremental propagation? I know it didn't a long time ago, then there
> > were CITI patches for it, then those didn't work for awhile. I don't
> > seem to be able to pinpoint an answer to it.
Jeffrey A
John Harris wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
> incremental propagation? I know it didn't a long time ago, then there
> were CITI patches for it, then those didn't work for awhile. I don't
> seem to be able to pinpoint an answer to it.
>
> Th
Greetings,
Does MIT's current implementation of the Kerberos KDC include
incremental propagation? I know it didn't a long time ago, then there
were CITI patches for it, then those didn't work for awhile. I don't
seem to be able to pinpoint an answer to it.
Thanks,
John
_
19 matches
Mail list logo
