Jorgen Lundman wrote: > *** NFS Option > > Start: > > Since we need quota per user, I need to create a file-system of > size=$quota for each user. > > But NFS will not let you cross mount-point/file-systems so mounting just > "/export/mail/" means I will not see any directory below that.
NFSv4 will let the client cross mount points transparently; this is implemented in Nevada build 77, and in Linux and AIX. > On the NFS client side, this would mean I would have to do 194172 NFS > mounts to see my file-system. Can normal Unix servers even do this? If they all had to be mounted at the same time, I'd expect issues, but an automounter is a better idea if you need to support clients other than listed above. > From Googling, it seems suggested that I use automount, which would cut > out any version of Unix without automount, either from the age of the OS > (early Sun might be ok still?) and Unix flavours without automount. As another poster said, automounters are pretty widespread - at least Linux, MacOS X, HP-UX and Suns of any vintage support the Sun automounter map format. What clients do you have? > Alright, let's try automount. It seems it does not really do > /export/mail/m/e/X/Y very well, so I would have to list 0/0 -> 9/9 each, > so 100 lines in automount. Probably that would be possible, just not > very attractive. > > * /export/mail/m/e/0/0/& > . . > * /export/mail/m/e/9/9/& If your setup is very dynamic (with mail accounts created or deleted daily), it could be painful. If so, you could perhaps use a map computed on the fly instead of pushing one out through NIS or LDAP, or use /net which is in effect computed on the fly. > *** nfsv4 > > There were some noise about future support that will let you cross > file-systems to nfsv4 (mirror mounts). But this doesn't seem to exist > right now. It would also cut out any old systems, and any Unix flavour > that does not yet do nfsv4 and mirror mounts. Nevada build 77 has this on Solaris; I can't give you versions you would need on other operating systems offhand, but could research it if you care to tell me what clients you run. > Answer: x4500 can not replace NetApp in our setup. > > We would either have to go without quotas, or, cut out any old Unix > server versions, or non-Solaris Unix flavours. x4500 is simply not a > real NFS server (because we want quotas). I think this conclusions is hasty. Rob T _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
