On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 02:52:41PM +0200, Nicolas Huillard wrote:
> Third, I'll only use Coda for mostly-read file systems (no POP/SMTP). Here,
> I consider FTP as a mostly read service, because there will be very low
> writing traffic, without any contention (onefile is uploaded to one server,
> I don't care which one, and the same file will never be uploaded once more
> on another server - I cross finger, but the application is done like that),
> and I hope Coda will handle it gently.
That sound very similar to the setup of the Coda webserver, which is
serving everything out of Coda. The `problem' I have noticed is that the
cache is gaining approximately 2MB every night. This seems to be related
to the the glimpseindex runs. I have not yet really looked into it, but
it might be related to unlinking (temporary) files that are still open.
> Postgres : I think one can't store the Postgres DB on a Coda FS. This won't
> help in any way, because only one instance of Postgres can use a DB
> directory (most data will be stored in memory, shared between Postgres
> processes serving the same DB instance). I plan to use a
Correct, in a way any filesystem is a database, and why would Coda be
able to solve the replication issues for other database systems that
have not been able to solve the replication issues themselves.
Jan
