(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 10:59:46PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote: > As this point in the general section of the FAQ is hopeless outdated > (1998) and the last entry in the mailing list is from january, I would > like to ask how good coda is currently in terms of stability. Sorry for the late response, Coda's stability varies and depends a lot on the type of usage. Read-only operation is pretty stable by now, our webserver has been serving all it's pages out of Coda for at least a year or two without serious incidents. It only writes occasionally, to keep the mailinglist archives updated (every fifteen minutes) and to update the glimpse search indexes (twice a day). Read-write disconnected or write-disconnected (i.e. when logging write operations) still has some bugs that surface occasionally. However most problems that occur stem from the different semantics compared to traditional UNIX filesystems, i.e. Coda only propagates updates after a close, which is sometimes surprising, especially because some applications like samba or webservers cache open filedescriptors and updates never arrive at the server. Another thing is optimistic replication/caching strategy both between servers and between a disconnected client and the servers. This allows for a faster and simpler implementation without distributed locking, but also opens a window for conflicts between file versions. Some conflicts can be automatically resolved, such as different files created in the same directory. However some require user intervention, i.e. different files created with the same name in the same directory. This can limit usefulness for a Coda client that doesn't have a regular user, for instance a Coda client that re-exports /coda using Samba or NFSd read-write but has no actual logged-in users that can fix potential conflicts. JanReceived on 2001-11-28 14:03:07