>> * Direct mounts. These appear to require a significant slowdown to the
>> entire VFS, and I do not believe this is justifiable.
> I disagree here... this is an compatability issue. Whether it makes
I've been wondering about the feasability of understanding direct mounts
in the maps, while implementing them via symlinks to an add-hoc autofs mount
point. It seems very doable right now with autofs v3 plus a few hacks
(implemented via lookup_program.so). Would that be sufficient ?
To me direct mounts seem very unimportant (as a sysadm I can very easily
change them to normal autofs mounts with no serious detrimental side effects)
so they should only be provided if they don't slow down the "normal" case
(the case where no direct mounts are used).
>> * 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
How close do you need/want the compatibility to be ?
Which amounts: what exactly do you use replicated server entries for ?
It seems it shouldn't be too hard to spice up mount to do the work.
Stefan
