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;-)) -- lenaerts.frank@pandora.be Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer
Attachment:
pgpXpN_9vqZn_.pgp
Description: PGP signature