[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: autofs vs amd: Is there a preference?

on Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:52:36PM -0500, Paul Smith wrote about Re: autofs vs amd:  Is there a preference?:
> %% Regarding Re: autofs vs amd:  Is there a preference?;
>   ao> hi ya robert
>   >> > I'm looking at my automount situation and wondering.  Is one going
>   >> > away?  Which is the "way to go" for automounting, amd or autofs?
>   ao> autofs vs amd is like tinydns vs bind or exim vs sendmail ( its
>   ao> does it do the minimum you need or is it loaded w/ unused features
> ... that is unless you use them.
> Like /net.  Which almost every enterprise environment I've seen makes
> heavy use of.
> Etc.
> I like amd much better, specifically _because_ it's a user-space
> application.  This allows me to control it (with amq), stop and start
> it, etc. much more reliably than autofs, which can easily get wedged and
> since it's in the kernel, what can you do?
> Plus, if you want it, the new version (still in beta) uses the autofs
> kernel support to get the same performance as autofs.

I didn't know there was such a big performance penalty in using amd
versus autofs (it doesn't mean that because autofs is partly kernel
space, that it is by definition twice as fast or so). Anyway, I don't
think most people base their choice of amd versus autofs on a
performance basis. It's more a difference of how both are implemented
internally, especially regarding the so called pwd problem.

> OTOH, my neighbor just enabled autofs on his RH 8 system today after
> weeks of using amd with no problems, and he had hardly started doing
> anything when the kernel oopsed in the autofs code.

Strange, I have been using it for more than a year, without any
problems (these were Debian boxes however;-))


Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
-- Henry Spencer

Attachment: pgpx7oFrg2FTL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: