Ivan Popov wrote:
Ryan wrote:How are the name spaces of Coda and AFS different? Up until now I thought they are pretty similar in that respect...
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.
Yes, as soon as I found this out it completely killed any plans I had for using Coda. :(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.
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
