[161] in athena10
Re: Filsys Hesiod pointers in Athena 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Timothy G Abbott)
Sun Apr 13 21:24:57 2008
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:24:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Timothy G Abbott <tabbott@MIT.EDU>
To: Jonathan Reed <jdreed@mit.edu>
cc: athena10@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <53351F47-B48E-4A82-9DFE-3FC1FCD5D7F3@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64L.0804132119340.8734@vinegar-pot.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sounds like a good plan to me.
-Tim Abbott
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Jonathan Reed wrote:
>> This leaves us with a few options:
>> 1) Implement fallback in our automounter
>> 2) Implement priority resolution but not fallback in our automounter
>> 3) Use the current implementations, and when convenient change all existing
>> Hesiod entries using priority to only offer one option.
>>
>> I currently prefer (3) because it results in a simpler system with
>> negligible loss in functionality, but don't have strong feelings on the
>> matter and don't know how many filsys entries use priority today.
>
> To aid in this decision, perhaps we could ask Ops to get us a list of:
>
> a) The filsys entries whose mountpoint currently differs from the locker name
> (ie: the oracle8 locker).
> b) The filsys entries currently using priority resolution/fallback OTHER than
> user lockers (which I don't think we have to care about, since most of the
> people who have such lockers know how to deal by hand).
>
> Additionally, once we have list (a), it would be ideal to do a cursory search
> of the MIT Community web space to see if any documentation needs to be
> upgraded, should we choose to stop supporting lockers with unusual
> mountpoints. I can think of two courses off the top of my head that use the
> oracle{,8} locker, for example.
>
> -Jon
