(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
Hi Alan! On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:10:49AM +0800, Alan Tam wrote: > Realm > ===== > I have 2 volumes, one for development data and one for production data, > and for effciency reasons, development data is stored in a development > machine, and vice versa. If I understand you correctly and you believe that running a Coda server and a Coda client on the same machine is efficient - then you make a mistake. Coda is designed as a distributed filesystem, based on a model "few well-connected trusted servers, many unreliably connected, hardly trustable clients". It does not work well (though it works) with a client and a server on the same host. > Should I have 2 realms, or just 1? 2 realms > because it sounds more natural to have something like /coda/dev for > development and /code/prod for production data. 1 realm because it > sounds wierd to "clog myname_at_dev". The path component present directly in /coda is essentially an administration domain. If you want to administer your production data totally independently of the development one - then use two realms. It would possibly double your administration work. I guess you'd rather keep administration as low as possible and use one realm... > Machine Name > ============ > Upon vice-setup, you have detected a machine name for the server, most > probably by the "hostname" command or equivalent. But I don't like it, > as this domain name is only for public access, and hence coda traffic > shan't pass through it, but using the internal IP, hence another domain, Using multihomed machines is tricky, I did not tried it, so can not tell anything of value. Anyway, you probably know that you should not try to use 127.0.0.1 and "localhost"... Regards, -- IvanReceived on 2005-02-09 15:53:29