Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!fernwood!synopsys!arnold From: arnold@mango.synopsys.com (Arnold de Leon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin Subject: comp.unix.admin.large Message-ID: <609@synopsys.COM> Date: 18 Dec 90 02:06:56 GMT Sender: news@synopsys.com Followup-To: comp.unix.admin Organization: Synopsys Inc. Lines: 56 I am in the process of redesigning the way provide /usr/local/{bin,etc,lib,man} Here is what I have in mind o automount /usr/local o any 'package' containing more than one binary would be installed in it's own directory. Example: perl /usr/local/perl/{bin,lib,man} would be created. The contents of /usr/local/perl/{bin,lib,man} would be symlinked to /usr/local/{bin,lib,man} as needed. o a side-effect is /usr/local/bin will be mostly symbolic links Motivation: + allow packages to be distributed on different files servers while allowing a consistent name space. + automounting will allow 'critical' packages to be replicated, also it would be easy to move packages + easier to update and deinstall software. All the binaries, libaries are in one place. Useful with large installations with multiple sys admins. + responsibility for packages can be more easily delagated to others. + easier to make a binary distribution for others (in my case, remote sales offices). - LOTS of symbolic links, possible performance hit - initial command generate automount mount request, another possible performance ? possible automount mount storm on hashing of paths? Questions: Any one done anything similar? If so how is it? Will you do it again? What do you think of the possible performance problem? Is there one? Is it significant enough to worry about or is it small enough to ignore. Is the performance problem heavily tied to into usage patterns? If so what are the really bad cases? -- Arnold de Leon arnold@synopsys.com Synopsys Inc. (415) 962-5051 1098 Alta Ave. Mt. View, CA 94043