> > * 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.
I have looked at what it would take. Linus said "no way". It won't
happen.
> > * 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.
It's just plain wrong to put it in autofs, for a whole bunch of
reasons. One of them is that it can't be done right. It won't happen.
> > 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.
>
