Coda File System

Re: Realms and machine names

From: Ivan Popov <>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:52:07 +0100
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.

> 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 myname_at_dev".

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...

> 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 and "localhost"...

Received on 2005-02-09 15:53:29