Hi,
Ivan Popov wrote:
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.
I don't think it is very efficiently, but is probably the best we can
do if we want the data to be accessed mainly on one machine and
sometimes somewhere else. Am I correct? If NFS authentication support
is better, I would have solved it very early.
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]".
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...
I think I understand the concern.
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"...
I think nobody would try to use localhost as hostname. But won't my
situation be common somehow?
Two machines are on a "VPN", using unroutable IP to communicate (say
10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2). But they do own public IP, and services like
apache would depend on the hostname. Hence the domain coda guessed
would probably refer to some public IP (like 1.2.3.4, 2.3.4.5). Of
course we won't expect 1.2.3.4 to be able to login 2.3.4.5 via port
2432. Then shan't we be able to tell coda to simply treat the machines
as 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2 regardless of their other IP addresses?
Regards,
Alan
|
