On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:45:24 +0100
Gémes Géza wrote:
> Another question: if I would allocate 2 or 3 separate pt and vl server
> machines what would happen if one or two of them would go off-line,
> from the point of view of afs clients?
You probably want 3. If you lose enough machines to lose qu
>> I plan to run my two (1.6.0) openafs servers (both are vl pt vol and
>> dafs servers) in a failover configuration (the failover supervised by
>> a redhat-cluster installation). The data is on a SAN which is attached
>> to both servers.
> I assume you want this for high-availability of RW data?
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:57:46 +0100
Gémes Géza wrote:
> I plan to run my two (1.6.0) openafs servers (both are vl pt vol and
> dafs servers) in a failover configuration (the failover supervised by
> a redhat-cluster installation). The data is on a SAN which is attached
> to both servers.
I assume
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
>
