(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
>>>>> "Andrea" == Andrea Prunic <andrea_at_yu.net> writes: Andrea> Now, is AFS better because it can do what I want to, or Andrea> not? AFS also requires centralized servers. Andrea> Yes, I've put a root server on my machine, and another Andrea> replica server on coleagues machine. There's no real point to this with Coda, unless you just want to make sure that burdens are equally high on everybody. (A _small_ number of replicas is justified in the name of security, of course. What I mean is that there's no need for all people wishing to offer files for sharing to run servers.) The way Coda works is that a file in use is _always_ replicated (in the day-to-day sense): there's a copy on the server, and a copy on the client. However, if you don't use the client's copy, and take no special action, it will disappear. So Coda conserves space on the client workstations, it does not share it. Andrea> some p2p solutions, which on the other hand, is not Andrea> exactly what we had in mind... Of course P2P is _exactly_ what you describe (files residing on individual workstations being offered for share, with a central directory service), with the additional requirement that the directory service be transparently presented as a Unix filesystem. I believe that on Linux, at least, it is possible to reexport NFS filesystems. That sounds to me like what you want. You have a central virtual server which doesn't offer any files itself, just reexports other NFS filesystems, which are offered by the individual workstations. But really, for music files can't you afford a couple of extra 100GB hard drives to set up a Coda server? Coda seems ideal for the application you sketch. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.Received on 2004-07-12 20:51:20