On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:53:31AM -0400, Shafeeq Sinnamohideen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Steve Wray wrote:
> 
> > > It doesn't matter what kind of FS is used on the server. Only the client
> > > is picky because we need to be able to access the container files from
> > > within the kernel to avoid bouncing all read and write calls up to
> > > userspace.
> > 
> > I only have 2 linux boxes, both are running RH7.1 with XFS
> > on LVM. So, one is a client and it has XFS.
> > 
> > I'm not sure how to interpret your comment about the client...?
> 
> The client venus cache partition must be on an ext2, reiser, or ramfs
> partition for it to work. This is because when the Coda kernel module gets
> a request, it must be able, in the kernel, to forward it to the file
> system that contains the container file so it can do the operation.

One small little correction to this, Coda client support for accessing
containerfiles in reiserfs and ramfs was introduced only recently in the
Linux 2.4.4 kernels. Other filesystems (such as XFS) might work, but
haven't been tested.

Some filesystems definitely do not work, tmpfs and fat/vfat are examples
of these. For the more source oriented people, as long as a filesystem
uses generic_file_read and generic_file_write they should work fine.
Any type of fs-specific file read/write implementations will result in
unexpected behaviour and possible fs-corruption.

Jan