On 10/7/07, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote: > Taking a bunch of things that may be out of order: > > [Nils] > > - Every mountpoint should be a service. If it depends upon other > > mountpoints, SMF dependencies should be used > > Ouch. This seems incredibly wrong to me. For one thing, it > potentially creates a very long list of services. For another, it > doesn't display the natural grouping of mountpoints that may > exist. For example, if I import a metaset, I want to manage all > the filesystems associated with that metaset as a single unit. > > This would be easier to integrate with things like > filesystem sharing, where you could easily align > with the new share groups.
Thinking more about the way that sharemgr does it, wouldn't one direction be to have mount groups as a counterpart to share groups? Then we could leave vfstab alone, and implement it as a legacy group of mounts. That way the old way still works (and many wouldn't need anything more), while still allowing for more advanced uses. I don't have a problem with mixed configuration (in other words having vfstab as the configuration file for the legacy service). That seems better to me than having people edit it and being surprised when nothing happens. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
