From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: mount: mount point /home/user does not exist Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:46:09 +0800 Message-ID: <4A52A8E1.7030307@themaw.net> References: <4A4D3408.40103@idilia.com> <4A4D8B40.9020402@themaw.net> <4A52038C.9090008@idilia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A52038C.9090008@idilia.com> 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: Filipe Brandenburger Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org Filipe Brandenburger wrote: > Hi Ian, > > Ian Kent wrote: >> Filipe Brandenburger wrote: >>> Recently I had failures in some hosts when mounting home directories, in >>> some cases more than one host at a time. >> >> This does sound a bit like a known problem. >> A bunch of patches have gone into RHEL-4 U8 which resolved almost all >> reported problems. You will need to log a bug or update to U8 to check. > > Thanks for your answer. > > Would upgrading autofs from 4.1.3-234 to 4.1.3-238 be enough, or do I > need to upgrade to the latest kernel as well? Above I was actually referring to the kernel, although I didn't make that clear. The RHEL-4.8 kernel update fixed almost all reported kernel related problems (there were a couple). > > Would using the "autofs5" package in RHEL4 be better in this sense? Do > you know if that package is as stable as autofs 4 is in RHEL4? That a trick question, right? As the maintainer I will always recommend version 5. The RHEL-4 autofs5 package is essentially the same as the RHEL-5 autofs package except that it's a release behind, as updates are back ported. The back porting of RHEL-5 updates will be somewhat more selective from RHEL-4.9 onward. Ian