Peter Staubach wrote:
> Hans Reiser wrote: > >> Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something >> ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for? >> >> Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help >> NFS? Do you think that NFS should look at SFS and consider adopting >> some of its features? >> > > I think that connecting to required data could be more easily done than > currently. I don't know about allowing file systems to be mounted without > some form of control or resource utilization controls however. > > I do agree that the entire user experience associated with using and > trying > to administrate an NFS network could stand a good, long, hard look. > > Traditional tools such as the automounter were nice 15 years ago, but > have > not evolved with the world, nor have the rest of the system tools for > monitoring and managing NFS clients and servers. > > I could definitely envision better ways to handle things. In the past, > many of the arguments against making things better were security related. > There has been strong (relative term) security available to NFS > implementations > since 1997, but many vendors have not implemented it and many > customers found > it difficult to deploy because the underlying tools were very > difficult to > deploy. Many of the vendors are now implementing the security > framework, but > more work is required on the underlying security mechanisms, making them > easier to deploy. > > With proper security, usable monitoring and management tools, and > flexible > resource controls, then I wouldn't see why NFS mounts should be anything > special. > > Thanx... > > ps > > I would encourage you to look at SFS..... it fixes a lot, making adding what Vlad asks for reasonable. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/