My .002... 

I had looked at setting up coda for our inhouse network (approx 5 servers
linux/SCO Unix) with 2 acting as the primary "file servers" and the
others
as clients.  after testing it out for a bit... coda seemed like a fairly
complicated solution with a fair bit of administration. we ended up
decideing on a combination of drbd and NFS (yes... NFS...icky...)

adding encryption to coda as an option would be interesting..

-Paul
 
> On 2001.11.09 20:30 David Santo Orcero wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >  Hello, coda hackers!
> > 
> >  My personal opinion:
> > 
> > > 1. Make it robust (may be we are already there? :)
> > 
> >  For me, coda is robust. It is working fine for me on a production
> > environment.
> > 
> > > 2. Relax server file number limitation to say 500Gb of 10k-files
> > >    (even if by a cute configuration utility creating 10 servers at
> > once?)
> > 
> >  Greater it will be good, but I have no problem on its actual
> > limitations.
> > 
> > 
> > > 3. Create a working client solution (client, gateway, samba setup,
> > >    anything) for Win2k & similar
> > 
> >  I do not use Win2k, can't give opinion.
> > 
> > 
> > > 4. Introduce real encryption and make both the server and clients
> > >    basically resistant against spoofing, buffer overflows and other
> > >    evident types of attack
> > 
> > 
> >  This could be interesting to use it on a exposed environment, but only
> > as
> > an option -it could work slower-.
> > 
> > 
> >  Anyway, I think that there is only one problem with coda: the
> > documentation. It is somewhat hard to follow it, because it has a
> strange
> > organization for me.
> > 
> >  This does not do less of the "great thing": coda is a great
> filesystem,
> > that give to us practical solutions for practical problems. Thanks,
> coda
> > developers! Excelent work! I want to thank also to Jan Harkes for his
> > help. Without it, it would be impossible for me to use it.
> > 
> >  Yours:
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > http://www.orcero.org/irbis
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>