Hi, my question was:
> I'm just now getting started with NFS, and read in the "Unix System
> Administration Handbook" by Nemeth, Snyder, Seebass, and Hein, that they
> strongly recommend the "amd" package instead of "automount" for automatic
> mounting.
>
> They say: "Unfortunately, automount is plagued with bugs and design flaws
> and is an unworthy opponent to the freely-available alternative, amd."
>
> Do you folks agree? All our unix boxes are alphas running DEC Unix 2.0, but
> we'll be moving to 3.2 soon.
The clear consensus was that amd is a much better choice than automount,
though a few thought automount could be made to work at a small, simple site
with a reliable network. For larger sites, especially with heterogenous
equipment, amd is definitely recommended.
So far, I've received answers from the following people:
anthony baxter <anthony.baxter_at_aaii.oz.au>
Arne Steinkamm <arne_at_Steinkamm.COM>
"Danny J. Mitzel" <dmitzel_at_everest.hitc.com>
Jim Wright <jwright_at_phy.ucsf.edu>
Dirk Grunwald <grunwald_at_foobar.cs.colorado.edu>
Rudolf Gabler <rug_at_usm.uni-muenchen.de>
"Tim W. Janes" <janes_at_signal.dra.hmg.gb>
bernards_at_ECN.NL (Marcel A. Bernards)
David Warren <warren_at_atmos.washington.edu>
CHELA KUNASZ /JILA (303)492-7807 <CHELA_at_JILA.COLORADO.EDU>
cyrmiche_at_sidoci.qc.ca
Brad Krebs <brad_at_EECS.Berkeley.EDU>
Thanks to all of you!
I'll keep copies of all the answers for a while. If anybody wants all the
gory details, let me know.
--
-- Phil Rand prand_at_spu.edu
-- http://paul.spu.edu/~prand/
-- Computer & Information Systems (206) 281-2428
-- Seattle Pacific University, 3307 3rd Ave W, Seattle, WA 98119
--
Received on Sat Jul 29 1995 - 03:28:44 NZST