On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 10:03 -0500, Vincent Liggio wrote: > On 02/23/2011 09:19 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > Vincent Liggio<vi...@blueskystudios.com> writes: > > > >> I'm guessing it won't work even if you get it to compile. We've been > >> trying to get it to work with the F14 latest kernel, and it just won't > >> function (we were able to get it to work on F12, but autofs3 refuses > >> to work on the F14 kernel). > > > > The autofs maintainer (Ian Kent) tries to keep the v4 kernel module > > compatible with v3. However, if you don't report problems, they won't > > get fixed (most testing these days is with autofs version 5). > > I reported on both kernel.org and on am-utils.org that autofs and amd do > not work with F12's kernel in March/April of 2010 (kernel.org bug 15878 > and am-utils bug 639). No one has acknowledged or worked on the bug, as > far as I can tell on the respective bugzillas.
I don't remember seeing any mail on that bug even though I'm on the cc list for it. In any case, it's asking for the autofs module to be built as default which isn't likely to happen since, even at that time, the autofs module was going to be removed from the kernel. > > We have discovered in the last couple of days that the amd compillation > is bad on F14, as is the kernel support for autofs. Copying the amd from > F12 (and the libgdbm library) and installing our custom compiled kernel > from F12 (with autofs enabled) works. amd from 12 with the kernel from > 14 (2.6.35.10-74) does not work, nor does amd from 14 with the kernel > from 12 (2.6.32.26-175). amd fails if autofs3 is not on, it does not > recognize autofs4 as being usable. But the autofs4 module should be able to be used for autofs kernel protocol version 3. It may require some changes in user space and, since the v3 protocol in autofs4 hasn't been tested for so long, there may be some other bugs that need fixing. > > NB: this is ONLY with amd in autofs mode. amd in nfs mode works, albeit > sluggishly. We cannot use nfs mode because some of our tools don't like > the whole /tmp_mnt structure. > > >> It performs horribly with nfs mode. Think it's time to move onto > >> supported technology unfortunately (autofs5 is no great shakes, we're > >> going to try autofs4). > > > > autofs4 isn't exactly supported technology either. You'd be moving from > > one dead-end to another. I've CC'd the autofs list. If you have > > suggestions and/or specific bugs, please let us know. > > A very large installations (40,000+ servers) of linux that I know of > refuses to use autofs5 because of issues with the mutli-threading. I > know no more than that, but I trust their opinion and experience, and > have heard rumblings of other groups having issues with autofs5. > > Vince > > _______________________________________________ > autofs mailing list > autofs@linux.kernel.org > http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
