Elliot Lee <sopwith_at_cuc.edu> ,in message <Pine.LNX.3.95.980605005037.15480A-100
	000_at_helix.cs.cuc.edu>, wrote: 

> Peter said at his LinuxExpo talk that it trickles back according to the
> available bandwidth...

  (in the voice of Mr. Burns:)  Excellent.

> > It's a grievous resource hog. 
> 
> Mostly an implementation issue - use of C++ doesn't help matters I
> suppose, and it wouldn't hurt to run coda through purify once or twice...

  Well, let me say that I wouldn't use C for anything over 1000 lines
anymore.  It's much easier to write correct dynamic memory usage in C++
than in C.  I'm also not familiar enough with the coda internals to tell
you why they want >80M of VM, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that I
could significantly reduce that without years of code study.  I would be
very surprised if it isn't a traditional time/space tradeoff.

> The builtin security is waaay better than what NFS has - it's obviously
> not perfect, but

  Well, if they're not subject to ITAR their security is still not good
enough to use unassisted across the big bad internet.  Volmes spread
across the internet is where coda holds the biggest promise.  I would
really like to have a server at my house and coda export the source
directories to the CEO over in Californa, 18 hops away.  I'll have to do
it through an IPSEC tunnel, though, because that information is way too
valuable to have it snooped off the wire.

  I expect such a modular solution will be the best way to go for years to
come.  Why reinvent the wheel unless you absolutely need to attach a drive
shaft?

-- 
Bob Forsman                                   thoth_at_gainesville.fl.us
           http://www.gainesville.fl.us/~thoth/