Darren J Moffat wrote: > Kyle McDonald wrote: >> Nicolas Williams wrote: >>> I don't. cachefs like behaviour could be useful for CIFS as well (and >>> some day WebDAV too, why not, and maybe the AFS community would use the >>> infrastructure if available). >>> >>> The problem with cachefs is that it needs to be a service provided to >>> filesystems that filesystems must use explicitly. >>> >>> >> As far as what a replacement for CacheFS might be able to do, I'd >> like to see even more of a 'Work Offline' feature than it had in th >> past. Nico mentions using it for CIFS, and Allowing the user to >> select files to be available all the time (on or offline) is one >> feature CIFS has had for a while now, and one I find myslef wishing >> for often when running Solaris on a laptop. >> >> >> I've used CacheFS quite a bit in the past (mostly for NFS >> distribution of application binaries) and I had planned to use it >> again in the work I'm doing now, well on Solaris anyway, my Linux >> clients won't have it. If it, or something like it were to ever offer >> true 'work-offline' (with or without synchronize on reconnect - >> useful for r/w, but not needed for r/o) I'd end up using it all the >> time. > > I'm not sure what you think is missing from CacheFS in this area. > With disconnected mode you could work completely offline and the > writes would be resync'd on reconnection. I used to have my laptop > setup that way with my home directory. The main reason for the change > was to use ZFS locally on the laptop instead. > Maybe I missed something while i was out of the loop. But it still doesn't sound like you can select on a file or directory basis which items on the filesystem to make available off line (allowing the other to disappear when offline,) can you?
Also how is the resync managed? what happens when both have changed? was there a UI that pops up asking which to keep, or for known filetypes, prompting you to merge them? -Kyle
