Re: Linux On-Demand Network Access (LODNA)

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Peter Staubach wrote:

> Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>> Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something
>> ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for?
>>
>> Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help
>> NFS?  Do you think that NFS should look at SFS and consider adopting
>> some of its features?
>>
>
> I think that connecting to required data could be more easily done than
> currently. I don't know about allowing file systems to be mounted without
> some form of control or resource utilization controls however.
>
> I do agree that the entire user experience associated with using and
> trying
> to administrate an NFS network could stand a good, long, hard look.
>
> Traditional tools such as the automounter were nice 15 years ago, but
> have
> not evolved with the world, nor have the rest of the system tools for
> monitoring and managing NFS clients and servers.
>
> I could definitely envision better ways to handle things.  In the past,
> many of the arguments against making things better were security related.
> There has been strong (relative term) security available to NFS
> implementations
> since 1997, but many vendors have not implemented it and many
> customers found
> it difficult to deploy because the underlying tools were very
> difficult to
> deploy.  Many of the vendors are now implementing the security
> framework, but
> more work is required on the underlying security mechanisms, making them
> easier to deploy.
>
> With proper security, usable monitoring and management tools, and
> flexible
> resource controls, then I wouldn't see why NFS mounts should be anything
> special.
>
>    Thanx...
>
>       ps
>
>
I would encourage you to look at SFS.....  it fixes a lot, making adding
what Vlad asks for reasonable.