> * Direct mounts. These appear to require a significant slowdown to the
> entire VFS, and I do not believe this is justifiable.
<OPINIONATED WHINING>
I disagree here... this is an compatability issue. Whether it makes
sense or not, most other implimentations of autofs support this and people
take it for granted. People will continue to see the Linux implimentation
of autofs as buggy or a cheap hack until features like this are taken
seriously. Now that doesn't mean that you should necessarily impliment it
right away, or drop everything to get it working, but don't dismiss it.
It's important. Take your time and get it right, but write it off.
> * Replicated servers. This is an NFS issue, not autofs. This means
> it belongs in mount(8) and the NFS kernel code. I completely refuse
Again, a compatability issue. autofs implimentations that support this
do so (I believe) in the autofs code, not the NFS code. There's a lot to
be said for doing things right the first time, but there's also a lot to
be said for keeping the underlying mechanisms structured as similarly as
possable. It makes troubleshooting much easier, especially in a
multi-platform envorinment.
> should you be able to mount a replicated server from autofs but not
> from /etc/fstab??
Because when I put something in fstab, I expect to declare it explicitly
and not to change unless I tell it to. When I want something to happen
automatically, I use an automounter.
</OPINIONATED WHINING>
> Oh, autofs v4 will be targetted for the 2.3 kernels and libc6. 2.3
> because I am planning to ask for certain VFS changes, which probably
Very cool.
-----
H. L. Mencken's Law:
Those who can -- do.
Those who can't -- teach.
Martin's Extension:
Those who cannot teach -- administrate.
