(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
One more thought... If you do break this hard dependency, I think that you will also open up the possibility of creating the backupless file system that we have suggested quite a while ago. I'm not an expert on Coda, but I have worked quite a lot with AFS and DFS and if Coda too has the possibility of creting multiple clones of a volume, it would be possible devise a cloning scheme that would eliminate the backup need created by the fact that users does the wrong thing, sometimes, like rm * .o One obstacle in creating such a sceme is the hard dependency that Ivan is talking about. If this is removed, the whole management of backup volumes, including their naming and mounting could be left to code outside of the file system, i.e. daemons, cron jobs or whatever. If the binding is preserved, the scheme would have to be implemented in the file system itself probably with less flexibility, and with a larger burden of support for the coda group. The other part, disaster backup could be managed through replication, now that disk prices are approaching that of tape. This, I guess, is rather straightforward with Coda too. Cheers. ChalmersReceived on 2003-05-03 11:58:46