coda, or alternative?

[urgrue <urgrue@tumsan.fi>]

i have two servers connected via gigabit ethernet. the one on the "far 
end" is basically a backup server from which i've mounted a few drives, 
to which the near-end server writes directly. the line is very reliable 
but it does have its problems once in a while.

NFS is awful, absolutely AWFUL, when there's a connection problem. it 
can end up hanging the whole machine (because many processes/scripts 
try to write to the mounted drive, and they all hang, eventually 
gumming up the whole system).

but i'd really like it mounted, as the amount of data that needs to be 
transferred is a bit loo large to let collect up on the near-end 
server. it doesnt matter if all attempts to write to the mount totally 
fail when the line is down, just so long as the machine survives nicely.

so i'm looking at coda, but everywhere i see warnings like "barely read 
for production use", "experimental", "development", etc....

samba has been good to me in other situations, but i'm a bit reluctant 
to use it because it doesnt behave all that nicely either (needs manual 
remounting often, etc. plus, linux pride counts ;)

is coda good enough despite these warnings, or are there other 
alternatives?