roland wrote: > thanks for your replies. > > i`m confused a little bit now. > > what is simply want is that an nfs share behaves just as another ordinary > filesystem share. > > if i share a directory via samba, it doesn`t matter how the mount strcuture > looks like, i.e. it simply exports a directory structure. it`s irrelevant if > it`s a single tree or a tree which is built from 2314 different filesystems , > i.e. which has 2314 mountpoints inside. the user can just see (and reach) > dirs and files. > > same with ftp. > same with http. > same with rsync. > same with webdav. > same with (insert your preffered net-filesystem here) > >
But all of these protocols came after NFS. And NFS has quirks that they we have to support. Sometimes those are implementation specific. I.e., in OpenSolaris, we say that within a filesystem, you can not have a share above another share. > i`d like to just have "showmount -e" show some export: > /myExport (myesxserver) > > so, myExport simply should be to upper level to be exported, no matter what > filesystem is mounted some dirs below that. they just should be accessible > via this single share. I don`t want any additional share like > "/myExport/anothermountbelowmyExport (myesxserver)". > > this is my linux cd-rom server: > cdromix:/iso-images # cat /etc/exports > /cd-roms *(ro,root_squash,subtree_check,crossmnt) > > below cd-roms there is a large collection of loopback-mounted iso-images. > this is exported via nfs and i can mount it on the client with ONE single nfs > mount commmand and access _all_ cdroms below that. > > so the question again, where`s the problem to have that on solaris and > where`s the real culprit here. maybe nfs is just too different and too (let`s > call it) "filesystem agnostic" ? > Roland, It isn't too different. The issue is that you have to make a lot of simplifying assumptions to do it. For example, you have to assume that there is only 1 share on the system. The way Linux gets away with this is that they clearly mark it as for power users and implicitly state that if you use it and get hosed, then you knew what you were doing. Don't get me wrong, what you are asking for makes sense. It is just dangerous. Tom