SUMMARY: Automount or AMD ? ADDENDUM

From: Phil Rand <prand_at_paul.spu.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 13:34:47 -0900 (PDT)

On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, Phil Rand wrote:

> 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.
>

[snip]

> I'll keep copies of all the answers for a while. If anybody wants all the
> gory details, let me know.

Several people wrote to ask for the gory details. To make this simpler, I've
posted everything I've received as of today (8/1/95) to our local FTP site:

        ftp://ftp.spu.edu/pub/misc/amd-vs-automount.txt

If anybody has trouble getting this, let me know.

Also, a couple people asked if amd works for alphas, and where to find an
alpha-ready copy. I didn't ask about that in my original question, and
nobody happened to mention it, but several of them did say they were running
amd on alphas, so I conclude the standard version must work, or an
alpha-ready one must be available.

My only suitable test machine is down with a memory problem right now, so I
haven't done anything with amd other than ftp a copy from gatekeeper.dec.com,
and browse the documentation a bit.

--
-- 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 Tue Aug 01 1995 - 22:59:12 NZST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed Nov 08 2023 - 11:53:45 NZDT