[OpenAFS-devel] Ubik voting idea

[Matthew Andrews]

yes, but wouldn't this need to be on all machines in case the designator
machine was down, and someone else got voted the designator? looks like
we still have the same problem.

-Matthew Andrews

Ted McCabe wrote:

> Idea:
>    Modify the ubik voting scheme so that the voting is no longer for
> sync-site, but instead is for the designator of the sync-site.  The
> current method of voting remains unchanged, only the "office" changes.
>    The designator would choose the sync-site based on its own
> configured preferences from those servers it knows are available to
> be sync-site.  Those preferences may indicate that the designator
> names some other server to be sync-site.
>
>    With this scheme, there is no longer any concern for db servers
> having different notions of which servers are preferred for sync-site
> since only one sync-site ordering is used.  In fact, the cell
> maintainers would be free to give servers different preferences for
> sync-site.
>
> Thoughts?  Concerns?
>
> Additional idea:
>    Perhaps also possible, the designator's preferences may specify
> that a server (or servers) is so strongly preferred for sync-site
> that the designator may change the sync-site even if the current,
> not-so-strongly-preferred sync-site is still functioning as such.
>    I expect if this idea has merit, it would only be implemented after
> the first has proven successful but still not sufficient.  My main
> interest for comments is thus on the first idea.
>
>     --Ted
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-devel mailing list
> OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel