On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:35:42 +0100
Horst Birthelmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's why the replication has to be triggered by the administrator.
Can this not be automated via cron for all volumes every 5min for
example?
--
Regards, Ed http://www.usenix.org.uk - http://irc.is-cool.net
:%s/
On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:12 PM, ed wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:35:42 +0100
Horst Birthelmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's why the replication has to be triggered by the administrator.
Can this not be automated via cron for all volumes every 5min for
example?
It can, of course, but that's
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:43:38 +0100
Horst Birthelmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:12 PM, ed wrote:
> > Can this not be automated via cron for all volumes every 5min for
> > example?
>
> It can, of course, but that's still no failover, since you have just
> one RW copy.
> If
On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:53 PM, ed wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:43:38 +0100
Horst Birthelmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:12 PM, ed wrote:
Can this not be automated via cron for all volumes every 5min for
example?
It can, of course, but that's still no failover, since you h
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:19:35 +0100
Horst Birthelmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Replication has nothing to do with AFS backups and volume database
> backup is an entirely separate topic.
> I'm not sure where exactly the confusion is... ;-)
> Those are three completely different things.
>
> If
On Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:36:40 AM -0600 Troy Benjegerdes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The advantage of AFS over a single system is you can have as many
incoming MTA machines, and imap servers as you want.
Yes, you can. But as the volume gets large, especially for any given
mailbox
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 08:03:40PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:36:40 AM -0600 Troy Benjegerdes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The advantage of AFS over a single system is you can have as many
> >incoming MTA machines, and imap servers as you want.
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
I very much recommend against trying to store mail in AFS. There is
no gain to be had in reliability, scalability, or performance, and
there are any number of potential problems. If what you're trying to
accomplish is to get those features in a distributed mail ser
Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That means that if any other AFS client is also accessing that
> directory, it has a callback that has to be broken (while YOU wait),
Isn't this solved by Callback Break Later?
> and then it has to fetch the entire directory again in order to be
>
Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> yes, we should consider having the vldb return port information for
> fileservers, which would make this easier: you'd only need separate
> vldbs.
Can the current fileserver code cope with two copies of itself
(belonging to different cells) running
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I mean, you can self-sign a certificate and give a paper copy to
>> somebody at a conference -- all without having to lease a server that's
>> "always-on".
> In that case, the person to whom you're handing the certificate and who is
> verifying that you
Adam Megacz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But you're still going to be doing authentication (and therefore
>> identity management, since you want your authentication system to
>> satisfy certain identity binding requirements which will require at
>> leas
Adam Megacz wrote:
> Yes. One facet of what I'm getting at is that users should be able to
> use face-to-face interaction as an authentication mechanism if their
> AFS admins wish to allow that in their cell. Right now there is a
> technological barrier to this policy option.
I really think you
13 matches
Mail list logo
