Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Fletcher Mattox wrote: >>> Fletcher Mattox wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>> Unprivileged ports and/or UDP are not viable options for us, so I am >>>> forced to increase the timeout from 5 minutes to 24 hours, which in >>>> practice means they are always mounted. We have about 400 automounted >>>> filesystems, so the only long term solution for us is to try to coalesce >>>> them to less than 100. Very painful. >>>> >>> You have 400 automounted file systems, all of which need to be mounted at >>> the same time? >>> >> >> Not all of them, but certainly more than 100 of them, which seems to >> be the limit we are talking about. >> >> > > Hmm. Perhaps Chuck Lever's work to reduce the number of required TCP > connections would help in this sort of deployment. > >>> If so, I might suggest that static mounts might better serve >>> your needs. >>> >> >> Really? I think this is the first time I have ever heard someone >> advocate static mounts as a solution to a large number of filesystems >> (especially ones that tend to appear and disappear frequently). >> But you are right, and this is effectively the solution we arrived at >> by increasing the timeout. >> >> > > Well, if the file systems tend to get mounted and then stay mounted, > then automounting does little good and can be harmful.
Yes, but at least you get the advantage of central management of your mount points. > Automounting also does not tend to work well with large numbers of > file systems and not always for the scalability reasons which are > being seen here. And yet people deploy things this way, and it works. -jeff _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
