From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: autofs illustrations Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:37:07 -0500 Message-ID: <45527833.9090100@redhat.com> References: <200611071719.kA7HJSvl002639@cs.utexas.edu> <1162958395.3555.8.camel@localhost> <4551DAE2.1080704@redhat.com> <1162994432.3555.15.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: Jeff Moyer Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org Jeff Moyer wrote: > ==> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:34:27 -0800 (PST), Joe Pruett said: > > Joe> > > Actually, there is work on going to reduce the number of > Joe> connections > > from the > > client to the server from one per > Joe> mount to one per client server > > combination. > > Solaris has > Joe> always done this and it works out quite well in practice. > Joe> > > Joe> > Excellent. > Tell me more? > > Joe> this sure sounds like the old solaris automount setup of: > > Joe> foo server:/path/disk:foo bar server:/path/disk:bar > > Joe> hitting foo would mount server:/path/disk and then symlink/bind > Joe> for foo. hitting bar within the timeout period would just cause > Joe> another symlink/bind instead of another mount. > > Quite different. I think Pete is referring to connection sharing. Quite different indeed. I am talking about managing connections separately from mounts. There isn't any logical reason that these two semantics need to be tied to each other. ps