On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 19:18 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Would someone like to educate me on the risks involved with autofs, > and why one would prefer autofs to whatever it is that HAL can do > on its own, please?
I've no experience with it myself, but I believe that where HAL (and successors) deal well with hot-pluggable devices, autofs is more useful for things like remote network mounts, where you know the list of possible mounts in advance, but it's undesirable to keep them active when not used. I believe my workplace uses it for auto-mounting home directories over NFS - any time I log in (or if someone else tries to access my home directory), it'll get mounted immediately, and if I log out, eventually unmounted. I *believe* it's autofs being used to this, though I could be wrong... In contrast, because you maintain a list of devices handled by autofs, it's not all that useful for hot-plugged devices - the random flash drive or card someone asked you to copy some files to isn't necessarily going to be in that list. Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
