Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent of automounter

["Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>]

On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 16:35 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > nope.  sorry.  i would hate to see such a botch in plan 9.
> > > if you want to distribute load by having multiple fs, then
> > > it should be done so that the client wouldn't know or care
> > > that any distribution is going on.
> >
> > I think you're deliberately exaggerating here. You must
> > know full well, that the client is *not* affected by that
> > knowledge when everything works as expected(*), which would
> > be in 99% of the cases (at lest here within Sun's intranet).
> > And the fact that this knowledge can be easily obtained makes
> > that 1% bearable.
>
> are you saying that clients don't need information about the
> variety of nfs servers serving the xyz tree?  if they do not, then
> could you explain how the client picks which server to mount.

The client does not pick. It is part of the automounter's decision.
And once the server gets picked by the automounter, it is awfully
convenient that you see the actual mount as part of the namespace.

Thanks,
Roman.