hi peter
thanx for working on autofs... good stuff for what it does
will there be a feature for, if one server is not
available, than it will look for the next available server ?
( multi-server environment )
home home1,home2:/home
where /home is ONE directory.....on two servers having access
to it....say in a dual-host disk controller...a with raid drives...
all client linux boxes get's their /home mounted from one of
the two home servers...
BTW... donno about you folks out there....but I would assume
you all use autofs to mount /var/spool/mail, /home, /usr/local, et.al
thanx
alvin
BTW, I assume I can put the following into the autofs-howto feature list ?
( ie since it's now publicly released in the mailing list...
( it's no longer a secret ??
> Okay, I'm planning to do outline the basic data structures of autofs
> v4 over the next several days. Some features are already a given:
>
> * Multimounts/scaffolding (/net being a special case of this).
> * Arbitrary mount point topology, without needing the
> spawn-an-automounter hack.
> * Mounting-process information passed to daemon.
> * Most of the filesystem data will live in "ready-to-eat" kernel data
> structures (inodes, dentries) as opposed to separate backing store.
>
> A few frequently requested features that are *not* included, so don't
> ask:
>
> * Direct mounts. These appear to require a significant slowdown to the
> entire VFS, and I do not believe this is justifiable.
> * lofs. Not because I don't think it is a good idea if it can be done
> right, but because it is a feature orthogonal to autofs.
> * Replicated servers. This is an NFS issue, not autofs. This means
> it belongs in mount(8) and the NFS kernel code. I completely refuse
> to hack in a feature into autofs when it is clear it should be
> provided elsewhere, *especially* when it is a feature like this when
> it would be more useful if provided elsewhere. After all, why
> should you be able to mount a replicated server from autofs but not
> from /etc/fstab??
>
> However, if there is some key feature that I'm missing, please speak
> up now: please send an email explaining the feature and its
> justification, and I will try to fit it into the design.
>
> 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
> won't be possible in the 2.2 kernel series, and libc6 because I need a
> thread-safe dynamic linker, which isn't available for libc5.
>
> -hpa
>
