From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:57:51 -0800 From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" In-reply-to: <15935.1228376363@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: <1228413471.16585.128.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <15935.1228376363@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent of automounter Topicbox-Message-UUID: 593c3788-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 02:39 -0500, Dave Eckhardt wrote: > > P.S. I've seen this disbelief in the fact that automoter + NFS > > actually can be really convenient mostly come from Linux people. > > Perspective depends on experience. > > AFS has its warts, but, trust me, if you've used it for a while, > you will not find yourself excitedly perusing the volume location > database to see where your bits are coming from. In fact, you > generally will not notice when your volume moves from one server > to another, even if you are reading from and writing to it at > the time. This is an interesting point. At some distant point in the past (last century, actually) I was drawn to AFS because of the features, but left in horror because of the complexity. I guess it doesn't really matter if your environment is being managed by a good IT -- you just reap the benefits. But as a tinkerer, I wouldn't call AFS malleable. Thanks, Roman.