Do not restrict number of Q2T servers
See original GitHub issueThe number of Q2T (Quorum-to-Tessera) servers is currently restricted to needing at least 1.
If we allowed no Q2T servers, then a Tessera node could act as a bootnode (a publicly known known node that all members could list in their initial peers, in order to bootstrap into the network), or as an archival node using the alwaysSendTo
configuration parameters of a “sister node”.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 4 years ago
- Comments:7 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
How To Limit The Number Of Host Server Jobs (Connections)
A common request is a system operator wants to limit the number of connections that can be made to a particular host server....
Read more >Are there resource limits on number of Authorization Servers ...
Certain SKUs are limited to a single Auth Server (aka Default) - Developer (paid), One App, Enterprise. For other situations, there may be...
Read more >Message size and recipient limits in Exchange Server
Summary: Learn how administrators can apply limits to messages in an Exchange Server 2016 or Exchange Server 2019 organization.
Read more >Limits - IPVanish Support Team
We do not impose a limit on the number of servers you have access to or can connect to each day; We do...
Read more >Server limitations and restrictions - HCL Product Documentation
At this time, IPv6 is not supported by the IBM Traveler server. ... If the device tries to sync a large (many MB)...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Perhaps keep the flag general and explicit -
allowNoQ2T
ordisableQuorumCommunication
, something along those lines.Loosening validation will result in more user queries and documentation. Using a config option to enable boot node mode is fine (we are not functionally disabling anything, the user is enabling).
I would suggest option 2. Option 1 might seem quicker but gains will be lost with support questions and documentation.