shank15217 wrote:You could try OCFS2 from Oracle. Its free and is a hell lot easier to setup than coda.
notfred wrote:Do you really need fileservers all around the world and have each of them be equal masters for all files? Could you get away with 1 being the writable copy and others being mirrors (the rsync solution proposed above)? Or could you have just one file server and have it accessible around the world (e.g. NFS v4 to help hide the worst of the latency)?
bitvector wrote:I will say there's a lot out there in the world of distributed and cluster filesystems (and, frankly, most of the free stuff is half-baked). One problem you'll have, though, is that most of the good quality solutions out there are not made to work with replication across wide area networks. They are generally designed for local area replication, because WANs usually have quite limited bandwidth and high latency. If you really want to do WAN replication with a distributed filesystem, you might try looking at GlusterFS, which does not require shared disks and can replicate (Lustre doesn't require shared disks but doesn't do replication itself -- they suggest hardware RAID or block-device replication like DRBD, which would be awful over a WAN). I don't know how well it'll perform, though. Like some others have mentioned, an above-FS replication mechanism might ultimately work better with your particular use-case.*
As notfred mentioned, Coda has nice features, but it's kind of a dead end these days.
Yes, V4 is meant to client cache the writes and just notify the server that it has updated the file. It doesn't need to write to the server immediately, it can wait for a while. If any other client requests the file though it will force a flush of the cache.cheesyking wrote:notfred wrote:Or could you have just one file server and have it accessible around the world (e.g. NFS v4 to help hide the worst of the latency)?
I've only used NFS a few times and only at a very basic level... how would NFS4 help hide the latency? Does it do some fancy client side caching or something?
I think they should be able to handle the concept of SVN - and remember you can always wrap the SVN commands in macros / batch scripts / cron jobs if you really need to hide it.cheesyking wrote:Is something like CVS/SVN a possibility? The documents are MS office files (2003), PDFs and jpegs etc. Do you think completely non technical types could handle it?
cheesyking wrote:Is something like CVS/SVN a possibility? The documents are MS office files (2003), PDFs and jpegs etc. Do you think completely non technical types could handle it? I like the idea of some users with laptops being able to sync directly to a CVS server and then work off-line.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], just brew it! and 5 guests