I must warn that I'm not speaking from direct experience.
I am not "doing" anything with CODA.
I'm simply comparing stated features to my functional requirements.

I need a shared file-system for clustering.
I'm fairly certain my typical IO bound use case would benefit from 
caching.
I hear (have witnessed, read) that CODA is more resilient to 
network/server outages than say NFS or AFS.
I appreciate the WAN communication protocol, finding myself sometimes 
limited by local NFS.
The "secure" comment I made didn't distinguish "secure" authentication 
from "secure" data transmission.
I guess I was thinking "secure" authentication with kerberos.
I'm not sure how data transmission is handled over the pipe and what 
options may (or may not) be available for securing it.

This is probably what you were asking about, and I have no answers for 
you.

Bill

On Feb 16, 2004, at 3:57 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:

>   As a resilient, secure, shared, WAN, caching file-system, CODA seems
>
> Regrading "secure": Are you doing something besides the xor 'cipher'
> that is built in to coda?
>
> -- 
>         Greg Troxel <gdt_at_ir.bbn.com>
>
--
William Van Etten, PhD
email: bill_at_bioteam.net
office/FAX: 978-255-1506
mobile: 617-921-3358
iChat: williamvanettenphd_at_mac.com