Let me try to convince you on the direct mount:
I need to mount all the directories under /usr1/data.
If I could have a /- in the auto.master pointed to say auto.data
/- auto.data
then I could automount this one directory with:
data machine:/usr1/data
and be done with it.
Now I have to put the following in the auto.master
/data auto.data
and then in the auto.data I put
dir1 machine:/usr/data/dir1
dir2 machine:/usr/data/dir2
.
.
The benefit of this would be to not having everyone to know all the
sub-directories under /data or having to guess these.
Of course if someone can point out a better way to do this I'd welcome it.
I've thought about having /data/data/dir1 etc already. That's a hoakie
fix.
Thanks,
Brian
" The Great End of Life is not Knowledge but Action."
- T.H. Huxley -
"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect."
- Benjamin Franklin -
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >> * 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 ?
>
> That's trivial to do, obviously.
>
> -hpa
>
