amd or autofos?

amd or autofos?

[Paul Furness]

Hi, all.

Is there someone around with lots of experience of auto mounting nfs
shares on RedHat?

Here's the setup:
I have just taken over running the network and servers for this nice
company, and we currently have a number of servers (all running RedHat
6.2) that variously run NIS, apache, various databases, and lots of disk
space. The disks are shared using nfs shared, and then mounted using AMD
on whichever machine the user logs in to. This includes not only shared
volumes of data, but also the home directories of the users.

There is an ongoing problem where AMD on a random machine dies at a
random time, and has to be restarted so people can access files again. 

It is my intention to upgrade all the servers to RH7.2 (I could update
the individual packages and the build a kernel, but a full upgrade seems
a whole lot simpler to manage!) and I also have the chance to update how
some of it works.

So given an unrestricted choice between ams and autofs, which would you
go for? Is autofs more stable than amd? It certainly looks to be
slightly better documented and slightly easier to configure. 

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

BUNgle

"One of these days I'll figure how the damn thing works..."

RE: amd or autofos?

[James Kelty]

If you just want to mount the NFS shares at boot and keep them there, you
can
just edit the /etc/fstab file to reflect that.

-James

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Paul Furness
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:59 AM
To: linux-net@vger.kernel.org; linux-admin@vger.kernel.org
Subject: amd or autofos?


Hi, all.

Is there someone around with lots of experience of auto mounting nfs
shares on RedHat?

Here's the setup:
I have just taken over running the network and servers for this nice
company, and we currently have a number of servers (all running RedHat
6.2) that variously run NIS, apache, various databases, and lots of disk
space. The disks are shared using nfs shared, and then mounted using AMD
on whichever machine the user logs in to. This includes not only shared
volumes of data, but also the home directories of the users.

There is an ongoing problem where AMD on a random machine dies at a
random time, and has to be restarted so people can access files again.

It is my intention to upgrade all the servers to RH7.2 (I could update
the individual packages and the build a kernel, but a full upgrade seems
a whole lot simpler to manage!) and I also have the chance to update how
some of it works.

So given an unrestricted choice between ams and autofs, which would you
go for? Is autofs more stable than amd? It certainly looks to be
slightly better documented and slightly easier to configure.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

BUNgle

"One of these days I'll figure how the damn thing works..."

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: amd or autofos?

[James Kelty]

The edit would look like this.

<snip>

192.168.10.23:/export   /nfs/local/mount/directory     nfs     defaults
0 0

<snip>

-James


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Paul Furness
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:59 AM
To: linux-net@vger.kernel.org; linux-admin@vger.kernel.org
Subject: amd or autofos?


Hi, all.

Is there someone around with lots of experience of auto mounting nfs
shares on RedHat?

Here's the setup:
I have just taken over running the network and servers for this nice
company, and we currently have a number of servers (all running RedHat
6.2) that variously run NIS, apache, various databases, and lots of disk
space. The disks are shared using nfs shared, and then mounted using AMD
on whichever machine the user logs in to. This includes not only shared
volumes of data, but also the home directories of the users.

There is an ongoing problem where AMD on a random machine dies at a
random time, and has to be restarted so people can access files again.

It is my intention to upgrade all the servers to RH7.2 (I could update
the individual packages and the build a kernel, but a full upgrade seems
a whole lot simpler to manage!) and I also have the chance to update how
some of it works.

So given an unrestricted choice between ams and autofs, which would you
go for? Is autofs more stable than amd? It certainly looks to be
slightly better documented and slightly easier to configure.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

BUNgle

"One of these days I'll figure how the damn thing works..."

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: amd or autofos?

[Christopher Slater]

However, by hard mounting the NFS mount you will get stale mounts if
the server goes down.  

I've had good luck with AMD, but I think you're right that autofs
seemed easier to configure.  

I would guess that you should be able to fix the problem you're
currently seeing using *either* package.  Could be unrelated to the
package, or a bug in the older version that might be installed.

Chris

--- James Kelty <jamesk@everbase.net> wrote:
> If you just want to mount the NFS shares at boot and keep them there,
> you
> can
> just edit the /etc/fstab file to reflect that.
> 
> -James
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Paul Furness
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:59 AM
> To: linux-net@vger.kernel.org; linux-admin@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: amd or autofos?
> 
> 
> Hi, all.
> 
> Is there someone around with lots of experience of auto mounting nfs
> shares on RedHat?
> 
> Here's the setup:
> I have just taken over running the network and servers for this nice
> company, and we currently have a number of servers (all running
> RedHat
> 6.2) that variously run NIS, apache, various databases, and lots of
> disk
> space. The disks are shared using nfs shared, and then mounted using
> AMD
> on whichever machine the user logs in to. This includes not only
> shared
> volumes of data, but also the home directories of the users.
> 
> There is an ongoing problem where AMD on a random machine dies at a
> random time, and has to be restarted so people can access files
> again.
> 
> It is my intention to upgrade all the servers to RH7.2 (I could
> update
> the individual packages and the build a kernel, but a full upgrade
> seems
> a whole lot simpler to manage!) and I also have the chance to update
> how
> some of it works.
> 
> So given an unrestricted choice between ams and autofs, which would
> you
> go for? Is autofs more stable than amd? It certainly looks to be
> slightly better documented and slightly easier to configure.
> 
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> BUNgle
> 
> "One of these days I'll figure how the damn thing works..."
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-admin" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-admin" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

RE: amd or autofos?

[Paul Furness]

Thanks, guys, but I already looked at hard NFS mounts and there are
three problems:

1. There are a fair number of machines (over 40) and things change from
time to time because we are an R&D place. Just the time taken to
manually edit the fstabs on all the machines and restart nfs make it
worth looking at alternatives. Also, there's the fact that I need to
interrupt the service for people using that machine when a change is
needed.

2. I want to try and minimise network traffic. I read somewhere (a while
ago, admittedly) that for as long as an nfs mount is mounted, there is
traffic being generated. Since we are researching into various
multimedia things, the network gets fairly regularly hammered by big
file transfers. Anything to reduce traffic is therefore a bonus

3. Stale mounts when things change or crash - the changes happen every
so often, and some crashes happen quite frequently.

I think there is a problem with the versions being too old - that's why
I want to get everything up to RedHat 7.2 (7.3 if it comes out in the
next couple of weeks) as I know for a fact there are some RPC issues
with the older setups.


Thanks for your thoughts.

BUNgle

On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 23:09, Christopher Slater wrote:
> However, by hard mounting the NFS mount you will get stale mounts if
> the server goes down.  
> 
> I've had good luck with AMD, but I think you're right that autofs
> seemed easier to configure.  
> 
> I would guess that you should be able to fix the problem you're
> currently seeing using *either* package.  Could be unrelated to the
> package, or a bug in the older version that might be installed.
> 
> Chris
> 
> --- James Kelty <jamesk@everbase.net> wrote:
> > If you just want to mount the NFS shares at boot and keep them there,
> > you
> > can
> > just edit the /etc/fstab file to reflect that.
> > 
> > -James
> >