I recently inherited a system that has more than a few quirks. One I
found sparked a bit of discussion as to which way is best - soft links
or automounts?

We have a server (E4500) with a 1TB raid. In one set of directories on
the system disks, there are a few directories that are links to
directories on the raid. But in another location (our ftp directories)
the directories are again on the raid, but are automounted
(/etc/auto_direct) into the ...ftp/pub directory tree.

Is there any significant difference between the two approaches?
Pros/Cons with either?


Thanks,
  Mike

In article <1136931722.807739.20930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
	"Mike" <msargent100@hotmail.com> writes:
> I recently inherited a system that has more than a few quirks. One I
> found sparked a bit of discussion as to which way is best - soft links
> or automounts?
> 
> We have a server (E4500) with a 1TB raid. In one set of directories on
> the system disks, there are a few directories that are links to
> directories on the raid. But in another location (our ftp directories)
> the directories are again on the raid, but are automounted
> (/etc/auto_direct) into the ...ftp/pub directory tree.
> 
> Is there any significant difference between the two approaches?
> Pros/Cons with either?

I would normally avoid direct automounter maps - they're a pain to
maintain. Regular maps are fine - but the map fixes the location, so if
you need something to end up in a random location you need a symlink.

However, the ftp server won't follow symbolic links, so in that case
you have to use real mounts - either auto_direct or explicit
mounts. Which explains why the automounter is used in that case.

-- 
-Peter Tribble
L.I.S., University of Hertfordshire - http://www.herts.ac.uk/
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/