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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- William Van Etten, PhD email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] office/FAX: 978-255-1506 mobile: 617-921-3358 iChat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
