(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
Hello, so if I got ir right; * Coda is normally reliable ... although this is still a littl ebit troubling. Ok, I plan to have replication, what should help. * I can't have files bigger than 2 GB because of how coda is implemented. It doesn't have anything to do with the client-side cache. ( Or does it allow for files as big as the cache? Although it still is a not-so-nice limit, the cache I would create would/could be multiple gigabytes. If I deploy coda, I will be using jfs for the client-side caches normally. Has it any advantages if I use a journalling file-system for the servers? Does coda do journalling? Thank you for your time and answer. Greetings, Michel Op woensdag 30 augustus 2006 10:06, schreef michel.brabants_at_euphonynet.be: > Hello, > > for what it is worth, my thoughts about coda. I really want to deploy coda > (it seems a good distributed filesystem), but the following things are > stopping me from doing this: > > * 2 GB file-limit on linux. I've read that there is a patch for windows, > but the question is how long before a stable patch wil be merged with the > linux-code? > * The faulty re-integration you mentionned that happens from time to time > it seems. This is a bad one or can it be detected and solved manually (at > least it is detected and solvable then). I read about a coda-rewrite, is > this already done in coda 6.x? > > We need the distributed filesystenm to eventually (can be within a month > or later) store terabytes of data. I don't think that this is a problem > with coda. > I think that coda is my filesystem of choice for the moment, if it wasn't > for the above things. > I want to add one last thing. I read that if a client is in disconnected > mode, 2x the space of files is/can be used because of keeping a copy of > the latest connected-version or so? Maybe I didn't get it and maybe you do > it already, but couldn't you for example only specify the blocks (on the > filesystem) that have changed? Maybe there are better solutions. > ASR seems to be nice. Reintegration of subversion-repositories could maybe > be done by using subversion-merge or so in my case. > > Greetings, > > Michel > > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 01:06:50AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote: > >> operations. We also take a hit on the network transfers, last time I > >> measured I saw writes in the order of 3MB/s to a single replica, 6MB/s > >> to a doubly replicated volume, and 7.5 or so to a triply replicated > >> volume. Not 100% sure anymore and this was a couple of years ago on a > >> 100Base-T network before we added things like encryption. > > > > btw. I am not terribly concerned about not being able to saturate a > > gigabit network. In my mental model the local cache is large enough to > > cache everything I care about, the period prefetching (hoarding) will > > pull in anything that may have changed on the servers and the > > write-disconnected operation will send any local changes back to the > > servers in the background. > > > > Jan > > > > > > >Received on 2006-09-03 14:38:40