I store 65GB of data in my coda tree.
Any one client only hoards about 40GB
of if though.

While not at the levels your speaking of,
I'm certainly higher then the 3.3GB data set.

I would be interested to hear from the devs
what they think the limitations are and
what challenges they face to increase that
limitation.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:30:19AM -0700, Andy Valencia wrote:
> --------
> Hi,
> 
> I've found:
> 
>     http://coda.wikidev.net/Limitations
> 
> but either I'm not parsing correctly, or it still doesn't answer a
> pretty basic question.  Say I have neither particularly large files (all
> comfortably below 2GB) nor large directories (say, none with more than
> 1000 entries).  But I have a large filesystem, currently at ~400GB and I
> want room to grow in the future.  Economically, it's quite easy enough
> to build a system with a 160GB root disk which can hold the OS and the
> server data, and then a pair of 750GB disks to hold the content with a
> mirror.
> 
> I can't tell if Coda is designed to size onto this efficiently?  As best
> I can tell from the manuals, Coda doesn't want any one data set to be
> more than 3.3GB (with an RVM data size of 130M)?  It's hard to get
> motivated to map onto 227 distinct partitions.  Is there somewhere I
> should go read to see if the latest Coda can better fit onto modern
> sizes of media?
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy Valencia
> 

-- 
James R. Leu
jleu_at_mindspring.com