[AFS3-std] Re: first draft: ubik update proposal

[Steve Simmons]

On Feb 15, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:

>>=20
>> 64-bit epochs are necessary.
>> 64-bit counters seem excessive.
>=20
> We don't "need" them, but the extra 4 bytes don't seem like a big
> problem. We know 32-bit counters do rollover at some sites. Although
> that shouldn't be a problem (once that one related bug was fixed in
> OpenAFS), an epoch/counter combination should ideally represent a =
unique
> version of the database or a unique transaction, shouldn't it?

Agree. Further, even if they're excessive *today*, they won't be 10 or =
20 years from now. AFS is already older than that. Yeah, we may not need =
all 64 bits for a while, but for anything over 32 the right answer is =
64.=