Hello!
Now I have understood why the schema with two replicated servers and the
coda-clients working on the same machines is even worse than with one
client and one server on one machine. The answer is in the thread
http://www.coda.cs.cmu.edu/maillists/codalist/codalist-2005/7558.html .
The diagramm drawn there is somewhat different from the one we get in my
case (it should be "cross-wired") but the idea is the same.
We starts with the two replicated servers (ViceA and ViceB) running on
two machines. Than we have two clients (VenusA and VenusB) each one
running on the same machine as the corresponding server (i.e. VenusA and
ViceA are on the same host). At the beggining Venus* sees both servers
but earlier or later it would disconnect from "its own" server. So we
ends up with VenusA seing only ViceB and vice versa. As it was explained
in the above-mentioned thread if we have third client than from time to
time (once at 10 min.) both server will be synced. If during this period
of time both clients try to modify the same file then at the next sync
we get a server-server conflict which we have to resolve by hand.
May be the schema with two "cross-wired client/servers" can be used in
situations than we have two groups of non-replicated volumes one of
which is "as a rule" accessed from the one of the server and the second
- from the another. For example the volumes are user's home dirs and one
group of user works only on host with VenusA and access only volumes
served by ViceB (and vice versa). But this setup looks to me a little odd.
M.Kondrin
