From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4e483a4a1847f6ddc09e55219ca67f11@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: [sources] 20070410: % cat
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:00:13 +0200
In-Reply-To: <12a554de22f1992874430323d774bd88@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 46862132-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Then you need two different sets of policy files and to have your
> initialisation bind the right ones into place.  I'm doing this now for
> a set of diverse machines with different keys, policies, etc. all
> sharing a single file server.

That does not contradict my statement that it does not scale.  Much as
I appreciate the philosophical value of bind/mount, a trillion
instances of a configuration file are going to be unmanageable.  Ron
is right that there is no slick solution, but it's worth knowing that
the current approach deserves exploring further.

++L