From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <da36689f4cb9854a6863a825aea80999@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  2 Dec 2008 14:29:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1228245926.16585.17.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: 55a7d816-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> since nfs is always directly mounted, i think you are confusing
>> direct mounts with things that are accessable because you have
>> mounted a server which has mounted something else.
>
> I don't think I'm confusing anything here. In fact, your statement
> of "nfs is always directly mounted" seems to be quite confusing.
> Here's how the above works (changing the names to protect the innocent):
>
>   $ grep set /etc/auto_master
>   +set.map
>   $ ypcat -k set.map | grep
>   /set/tools set.tools -rw,hard,intr,nosuid
>   $ ypcat -k set.tools | grep gcc
>   gcc -ro / gcc-stuff:/ /4.0 gcc-tools:/4.0 /4.1 gcc-tools:/4.1 /3.0 old-gcc-tools:/

but the machine you're logged into does do the mount directly
in your namespace.  (the one and only namespace.)  conversely,
with srvfs, you are mounting a fs that inturn mounts other fs.
fundamentally this is different.

(hey, could you imagine a seperate nfs mount for ken's compiler?
laughable, no?)

>> i would think that either you want encapsulation or you don't.
>> see-through encapsulation would seem to me to be a contradiction
>> in terms.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Lets see if you change your mind after the
> explanation given above.

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.

- erik