From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <312a6a45e31e2c3acf38b5262eab0b9f@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  2 Dec 2008 16:35:49 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <1228252499.16585.42.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent of automounter
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 560172c2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > 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.

- erik