Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!image.soe.clarkson.edu!sunybcs!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!deke
From: deke@ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Robust Mounts
Message-ID: <1990Jan9.220629.26976@ee.rochester.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 90 22:06:29 GMT
References: <21956@adm.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: deke@ee.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Lines: 21


In article <10284@zodiac.ADS.COM> mliverig@spark.uucp writes:
>A few months back there was a discussion about making "nfs" networks
>robust. It was my impression that there was a consensus that:
>
>1) Soft mounts of read-write file systems would increase the risk of
>corrupting the file systems.

I agree with this, and stick to it as a loose rule.  There are some occasions
when I ignore it, after thinking it over carefully.

>
>2) Automounting was a good idea that was not yet safe.

This is what caught my eye.  I have been reading up on, and testing, automounter
for the last week and a half.  Why was it considered 'not yet safe'?  I have
apparently missed an important discussion.


      ^Deke Kassabian,   deke@ee.rochester.edu   or   ur-valhalla!deke
   Univ of Rochester, Dept of EE, Rochester, NY 14627     (+1 716-275-3106)