disable direct mounts

disable direct mounts

[devnull]

Is it still possible to disable direct mounts via DISABLE_DIRECT=1
Automount version 5.0.1-0.rc2.102

We would like to continue to disable direct mounts. The other option is to 
use a different "auto.master" w/o the auto.direct, but we would like to 
avoid that.

Thanks.

/dev/null

devnull@adc.idt.com

Re: disable direct mounts

[Ian Kent]

devnull@adc.idt.com wrote:
> Is it still possible to disable direct mounts via DISABLE_DIRECT=1
> Automount version 5.0.1-0.rc2.102

No it isn't.

> 
> We would like to continue to disable direct mounts. The other option is
> to use a different "auto.master" w/o the auto.direct, but we would like
> to avoid that.

Why do you want to disable direct mounts?

Ian

Re: disable direct mounts

[devnull]

>> We would like to continue to disable direct mounts. The other option is
>> to use a different "auto.master" w/o the auto.direct, but we would like
>> to avoid that.
>
> Why do you want to disable direct mounts?
To solve our /usr/local issue.

Our NIS master is a Solaris box. We have an entry in auto.direct for 
/usr/local that currently points to our Sun Solaris binaries.
The auto.direct is included in our auto.master

We are considering a move to autofs 5.x as part of our OS upgrade. We 
could create a separate auto.master.lnx that does not have auto.direct 
in it, but we prefer not to do that.

"Solving the /usr/local/ puzzle" as the NIS and NFS book suggests is 
something we can do, I am just not sure if we can do that right away.

So someway to disable auto.direct would be useful for us.

Thanks.

Re: disable direct mounts

[Ian Kent]

devnull@adc.idt.com wrote:
>>> We would like to continue to disable direct mounts. The other option is
>>> to use a different "auto.master" w/o the auto.direct, but we would like
>>> to avoid that.
>>
>> Why do you want to disable direct mounts?
> To solve our /usr/local issue.
> 
> Our NIS master is a Solaris box. We have an entry in auto.direct for
> /usr/local that currently points to our Sun Solaris binaries.
> The auto.direct is included in our auto.master
> 
> We are considering a move to autofs 5.x as part of our OS upgrade. We
> could create a separate auto.master.lnx that does not have auto.direct
> in it, but we prefer not to do that.
> 
> "Solving the /usr/local/ puzzle" as the NIS and NFS book suggests is
> something we can do, I am just not sure if we can do that right away.

That is probably the best solution.
You can use built in macros in the mount location of your maps to
achieve that. See autofs(5).

> 
> So someway to disable auto.direct would be useful for us.

You don't say if your maps are always from local files or some other source.

> 
> Thanks.

Re: disable direct mounts

[Ian Kent]

devnull@adc.idt.com wrote:
>>> We would like to continue to disable direct mounts. The other option is
>>> to use a different "auto.master" w/o the auto.direct, but we would like
>>> to avoid that.
>>
>> Why do you want to disable direct mounts?
> To solve our /usr/local issue.
> 
> Our NIS master is a Solaris box. We have an entry in auto.direct for
> /usr/local that currently points to our Sun Solaris binaries.
> The auto.direct is included in our auto.master
> 
> We are considering a move to autofs 5.x as part of our OS upgrade. We
> could create a separate auto.master.lnx that does not have auto.direct
> in it, but we prefer not to do that.
> 
> "Solving the /usr/local/ puzzle" as the NIS and NFS book suggests is
> something we can do, I am just not sure if we can do that right away.
> 
> So someway to disable auto.direct would be useful for us.

One thing you could do with v5 is to include a map that has a null map
entry for /usr/local.

For example, if you are using file maps on each machine you could do
something like this in auto.master:

/some/mount	/etc/some.map
....
+/etc/auto.master.null
/-	/etc/auto.map.with.usr.local
...

And /etc/auto.master.null would have"
/usr/local	-null

Or just add the null entry to the master map itself but then you need
multiple master map instances for each arch.

Note that plus map inclusion is allowed only in file maps and is
typically used to add local client map customisations when using a
centralized source of map information.

This obviously introduces possible problems with different versions of
autofs, and possibly with different distributions. For example there was
a recent bug in v5 where reading of the master map would stop if the
plus included map didn't exist. I'm not sure how version 4 will behave
with this either. However, I would expect other vendor autofs
implementations to work OK.

Ian

Re: disable direct mounts

[devnull]

>>>> We would like to continue to disable direct mounts. The other option is
>>>> to use a different "auto.master" w/o the auto.direct, but we would like
>>>> to avoid that.
>>>
>>> Why do you want to disable direct mounts?
>> To solve our /usr/local issue.
>>
>> Our NIS master is a Solaris box. We have an entry in auto.direct for
>> /usr/local that currently points to our Sun Solaris binaries.
>> The auto.direct is included in our auto.master
>>
>> We are considering a move to autofs 5.x as part of our OS upgrade. We
>> could create a separate auto.master.lnx that does not have auto.direct
>> in it, but we prefer not to do that.
>>
>> "Solving the /usr/local/ puzzle" as the NIS and NFS book suggests is
>> something we can do, I am just not sure if we can do that right away.
>>
>> So someway to disable auto.direct would be useful for us.
>
> One thing you could do with v5 is to include a map that has a null map
> entry for /usr/local.
>
> For example, if you are using file maps on each machine you could do
> something like this in auto.master:
>
> /some/mount	/etc/some.map
> .....
> +/etc/auto.master.null
> /-	/etc/auto.map.with.usr.local
> ....
>
> And /etc/auto.master.null would have"
> /usr/local	-null

Our maps are served via NIS. The master map include the direct map and a 
few other non-direct maps. Since we used to be a Solaris shop, the 
auto.direct /usr/local point to the location for Solaris binaries.

This was not an issue with earlier automount version 4.1.3-187 and the way 
it handled (or didn't handle direct maps)

> Or just add the null entry to the master map itself but then you need
> multiple master map instances for each arch.
I am trying to avoid having multiple master map instances for each arch. I 
could just remove the auto.direct for a newly created auto.master.lnx and 
that would solve my problem of having solaris /usr/local on my linux machines.

One issue with using /usr/local -null is that you cannot make /usr/local 
reference any other shared location served via NIS maps (e.g: With v4 of 
autofs and auto.direct is disabled, we made a softlink from /usr/local 
to /home/linuxlocal, where /home/linuxlocal was our repository). This 
solved the /usr/local puzzle for us.

Hence the request to disable direct maps.

Thanks for your time.


> Note that plus map inclusion is allowed only in file maps and is
> typically used to add local client map customisations when using a
> centralized source of map information.
> This obviously introduces possible problems with different versions of
> autofs, and possibly with different distributions. For example there was
> a recent bug in v5 where reading of the master map would stop if the
> plus included map didn't exist. I'm not sure how version 4 will behave
> with this either. However, I would expect other vendor autofs
> implementations to work OK.

Re: disable direct mounts

[Ian Kent]

devnull@adc.idt.com wrote:
>>>>> We would like to continue to disable direct mounts. The other
>>>>> option is
>>>>> to use a different "auto.master" w/o the auto.direct, but we would
>>>>> like
>>>>> to avoid that.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want to disable direct mounts?
>>> To solve our /usr/local issue.
>>>
>>> Our NIS master is a Solaris box. We have an entry in auto.direct for
>>> /usr/local that currently points to our Sun Solaris binaries.
>>> The auto.direct is included in our auto.master
>>>
>>> We are considering a move to autofs 5.x as part of our OS upgrade. We
>>> could create a separate auto.master.lnx that does not have auto.direct
>>> in it, but we prefer not to do that.
>>>
>>> "Solving the /usr/local/ puzzle" as the NIS and NFS book suggests is
>>> something we can do, I am just not sure if we can do that right away.
>>>
>>> So someway to disable auto.direct would be useful for us.
>>
>> One thing you could do with v5 is to include a map that has a null map
>> entry for /usr/local.
>>
>> For example, if you are using file maps on each machine you could do
>> something like this in auto.master:
>>
>> /some/mount    /etc/some.map
>> .....
>> +/etc/auto.master.null
>> /-    /etc/auto.map.with.usr.local
>> ....
>>
>> And /etc/auto.master.null would have"
>> /usr/local    -null
> 
> Our maps are served via NIS. The master map include the direct map and a
> few other non-direct maps. Since we used to be a Solaris shop, the
> auto.direct /usr/local point to the location for Solaris binaries.
> 
> This was not an issue with earlier automount version 4.1.3-187 and the
> way it handled (or didn't handle direct maps)

Right, but v5 direct maps behave like direct maps now.

> 
>> Or just add the null entry to the master map itself but then you need
>> multiple master map instances for each arch.
> I am trying to avoid having multiple master map instances for each arch.
> I could just remove the auto.direct for a newly created auto.master.lnx
> and that would solve my problem of having solaris /usr/local on my linux
> machines.

Or add the null entry to the master map on the machines that need it on
install.

> 
> One issue with using /usr/local -null is that you cannot make /usr/local
> reference any other shared location served via NIS maps (e.g: With v4 of
> autofs and auto.direct is disabled, we made a softlink from /usr/local
> to /home/linuxlocal, where /home/linuxlocal was our repository). This
> solved the /usr/local puzzle for us.

I guess that could be a problem.
I don't know how this is handled in other products but if there is a
null map entry v5 will leave it alone. No mount will be done so a
symlink should still be possible.

> 
> Hence the request to disable direct maps.
> 
> Thanks for your time.
> 
> 
>> Note that plus map inclusion is allowed only in file maps and is
>> typically used to add local client map customisations when using a
>> centralized source of map information.
>> This obviously introduces possible problems with different versions of
>> autofs, and possibly with different distributions. For example there was
>> a recent bug in v5 where reading of the master map would stop if the
>> plus included map didn't exist. I'm not sure how version 4 will behave
>> with this either. However, I would expect other vendor autofs
>> implementations to work OK.
>