Coda File System

reliability,performance ?

From: Michel Brabants <>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:18:12 +0200

I've been following coda from time to time, but at the moment I'm really 
looking for a distributed filesystem. This is in the beginning as a back-end 
for the subversion-server at our office. I've found the following 3 options:

 * coda
 * gfarmfs
 * lustre

I like coda, because of it's disconnected operation, security(?, kerberos v5?) 
and because it is the standard kernel. The fact that it already is present in 
the kernel reduces the maintenance a lot. I also think that coda is the most 
accessible from a non-commercial-user/community-point of view.

Ofcourse, the others also have their advantages :).

I believe that this question has been asked in the past, but I would like to 
ask it again :). I hope you don't mind it too much. Is coda ready to use it 
in a production-environment?
In our case this means that the product should work reliable. So, there 
shouldn't be any data-loss because of product-mistakes. I would like to ask 
you what your thought about this is? How reliable is coda? When not? Is there 
a timeframe in which you think that coda will be reliable?
Ofcourse, it should also be performant. Do you think that coda is quite 
performant? Can it transfer at high speads? If there are any, could you give 
some examples?
I read that someone wrote a patch to authenticate against kerberos v5. We use 
kerberos v5-authentication. Has it been merged?
We need secure(checksum or similar, and encryption) data-transfer ... So, can 
the data be encrypted or has this to be done "externally"? What are the types 
of checksums(?), encryption?

I might also run coda at home :-) and I think that my preferred requirements 
would look the same :).

Thank you for your time and response,

Michel Brabants

Received on 2006-08-25 17:21:19