Hubert Tonneau <tonneau.heliosam_at_hol.fr> ,in message <3577383B.14FA54C5_at_hol.fr>
	, wrote: 

> So what's the trouble with CODA ?
> 
> If any of you have used it, i am interested with true life experiments
> reports about CODA.

  Well, since I'm already known as a wet blanket, I might as well whine some
more :)

  I never could get the server to run on my machine, but I'm a fossil, still
using non-esperimental kernels.  I'm not confident about the write performance
of clients through slow links.  It's a grievous resource hog.  Linux doesn't
yet have the "raw" disk devices coda needs for ultra-reliable operation. 
Resolution after a partitioned server is bandwidth-expensive.  I have doubts
that you can dynamically add a server to a volume (of course, Peter could bust
out with a 3-line shell example and prove me wrong :)  It doesn't have good
built-in security (and that giant suck-ass ITAR will probably prevent it from
having any that is exportable).

  The majority of these concerns will be addressed as the project progresses. 
I don't think coda will ever replace NFS at the low end of the spectrum, but
at the high end, coda will become indispensable.  The only barrier to its
deployment will be resources, licensing, and porting.

-- 
Bob Forsman                                   thoth_at_gainesville.fl.us
           http://www.gainesville.fl.us/~thoth/