Ivan Popov wrote:

>Ryan wrote:
>  
>
>>all I really want is global name space
>>    
>>
>
>Certainly Coda is the best fs in that aspect. The question is what you
>mean by "globalness". Some approximation like AFS does it can be ok.
>  
>
How are the name spaces of Coda and AFS different?  Up until now I 
thought they are pretty similar in that respect...

>>Question #4: If users need to work with 10GB or greater files, will the client
>>cache manager be able to deal with that or will everything just come crashing
>>down when they try?
>>    
>>
>
>No. No files bigger than 2G.
>
>Are you aware that open() on not-yet-cached files blocks until the whole file
>is fetched into the cache? It takes at least 2 minutes for 1G file on a 100Mbit
>connection.
>  
>
Yes, as soon as I found this out it completely killed any plans I had 
for using Coda. :(

If not for the RVM (since I want to use it with Maildir based mail 
servers), blocking open() call (since I want to use it with larger 
files), and reintegration issues (the users don't have command line 
access to the servers -- so this is critical), I would be testing Coda 
instead of OpenAFS.

OpenAFS 1.2 has a 2GB file size limitation, but version 1.3 in 
development (late beta stages) has overcome that hurtle on all platforms 
except for Windows.  Also OpenAFS has a max number of directory entries 
of 64,000 per directory.

>  
>
>>I know I'm asking a lot, but all I really want to know is if I should bother
>>to continue educating myself in Coda or if Coda just isn't the right solution
>>for me.
>>    
>>
>
>It is only you who know your needs and can make the decision.
>AFS is pretty stable and is in wide use. As you do not need
>write-replication or disconnected mode, it might be right for you.
>
I agree with Ivan.

Ryan, also don't take my word for it.  Ask on the OpenAFS list.

Mike