On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 braam_at_cs.cmu.edu wrote:

> Hi Anand,
> 
> In principle Coda is exactly what you want for this. It is possible to 
> have servers of a few GB, not many many GB and Coda is experimental,
> meaning that we don't believe it is ready for production use.  
> 
> It is rapidly improving - so you could try. 
> 
> - Peter -

So now that IBM has 25 GB drives avaible, do you foresee that coda will be
able to scale to handle ~100-200 GB on a single server? Will this also
require ~1GB of RAM on the server machine? Are there any inherent
scalability problems you are aware of with the coda architecture so far?

Btw, I think the RAM requirements of coda are somewhat excessive.. But
then again, the cost the additional RAM Coda requires are most likely more
than offset by not needing an expensive RAID subsystem and the elimination
of any one single point of failure.

I would love to be able to use a 'production' version of Coda in 2 years
with say 200 GB of read-replicated storage with 1 writer machine and 50 GB
or so of fully rw replicated storage.

> Anand Angad Gaur writes:
>  > I am using a Linux server and I thinking of installing Linux on a second
>  > machine wich should be an exact duplicate to act as a backup server.
>  > 
>  > Is it possible to use coda to synchronize the filesystem on the second
>  > machine continuosly ?
>  > 
>  > Is coda the best solution for this task and is it reliable enough at this
>  > moment ?
>  > 
>  > Anand
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Troy Benjegerdes    |    troybenj_at_iastate.edu    |    hozer_at_drgw.net   |
|    Unix is user friendly... You just have to be friendly to it first.  |
| This message composed with 100% free software.    http://www.gnu.org   |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------