admin at dougware.net <admin at dougware.net> wrote: > I need a network based distributed operating system, something like > Intermezzo or Coda to keep two servers in sync on one partition. I have a > server at work and at home that I want to keep a MyDocuments partition in > sync. NFS will not work because I need a offline or online solution. The newer autofs allows you to automount multiple systems. So you could have it mount a local share if the server isn't available, then automate rsync updates the local to the server when the server is detected. There are also other network filesystems that offer what you need. > RSYNC will not work, who many inconsistancies from files being created > and removed. I've never had this issue at all with my users. I maintain a "~/work" directory and a "~/worksync" directory. I know whatever I have in "work" stays on the server, and what is in "worksync" is synchronized between the local and the server. On the portables, work is a symlink to worksync, so they have no, non-synced storage. I really think this is more of a workflow issue than a technology one. > Will GFS work for my needs when they release U1 for CentOS? If > not, does anyone have any coda or intermezzo rpms for CentOS4? Hmmm, my use of GFS has always been very, very different. I guess it could be used for such though? From: Greg Knaddison <greg.knaddison at gmail.com> > I really like having things stored in a version control system (e.g. > cvs, svn, git, arch). That way your machine at home is the repository > and you can use a "cvs checkout documents/taxes" to get all of those > documents and also do an update to see which ones have changed locally > and need to be committed back to the server. Mega-dittos there! Version control is wholly undervalued for everything, and solves the overwhelming majority of workflow and other issues -- even just for 1 person on their own (let alone multiple people working together). Hell, I'd just be happy if someone would do a "ci -l filename" before and after editing a file as root. RCS is so simplistic to use, yet so powerful for just standalone configuration file management. And ,v files are always importable to any other revision controll system. Of course, at the same time, I'm an evil man who _loves_ to catch people who modify /etc files, forget, but it leaves the system in a state that is not usable or at least not bootable the next time. By simply using rcsdiff from the last time I edited -- pointing out the changes, line-by-line, until someone fesses up. In reality, my ultimate goal is to get them to just do a "ci -l filename" as well, so they can revert to what they had before if needbe. > Subversion is a bit more efficient than cvs. It handles binaries inherently too, all will being CVS client syntax compatible. Combined with its WebDAV-DeltaV option via Apache 2, it's absolutely awesome for less technical users as well (who aren't commonly CVS familiar). > I haven't looked heavily at git or arch, but they have smart people working > on them. > Personal disk space is cheap...why not keep all revisions of your documents :) The great thing about modern, reverse-delta revisioning programs is that they don't eat up a lot of disk space either. They revision very tight, especially Subversions for many common binary formats. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org