Re: Is sshfs usable and sensible as home directory file system?

[Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>]

[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> We can disable autofs on diskless workstations and use sshfs
> instead.  The question is, do we want to?

I ran the file system test from <URL:https://github.com/gebi/fs-test>,
and got this result:

  Testing POSIX/Unix sematics on file system
  info: testing symlink creation
  info: testing hard link creation
   error: link() succeeded but link count was not incremented
  info: testing subdirectory creation
  info: testing umask effect on file creation
    error: Wrong file mode 664 when creating using mode 666 and umask 000
  info: sqlite worked
  info: testing fcntl locking
    Read-locking 1 byte from 1073741824
    Read-locking 510 byte from 1073741826
    Unlocking 1 byte from 1073741824
    Write-locking 1 byte from 1073741824
    Write-locking 510 byte from 1073741826
    Unlocking 2 byte from 1073741824

So umask and hardlink handling is broken.  The umask problem will
affect file sharing using NFS on shared directories, while the
hardlink issue probably will not affect many programs.

Disabling autofs will make it harder to make sure shared directories
are mounted on all clients too, so if we drop autofs on diskless
workstations, I guess the umask problem matter less than the lack of
easy sharing of files. :)

-- 
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen