From: Thomas Haynes <Thomas.Haynes-UdXhSnd/wVw@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: To Automount or to Not Automount?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:58:29 -0600
Message-ID: <4B4F8575.1010505@sun.com>
References: <hint4t$gjt$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
To: Jon Forrest <jlforrest-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org>
In-reply-to: <hint4t$gjt$1@ger.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

Jon Forrest wrote:
>
> So, I'd like to ask the NFS experts on this
> list whether in a CentOS 5 environment with
> NFS3 mounts over a functional private network,
> would using static mounts result in any negatives
> as compared to automounts. I'm especially interested
> in overhead on the NFS server.
>
> Cordially,

Is every node mounting every other node?

Or are you talking about every node mounting a central
server?

The static mounts would happen on boot and you might
have issues if every node was trying to mount every other
node. With automounts, you would delay the mounting
until the booting node has to access the other node.

I had this issue way back in 1998 with a Beowulf
cluster.  Heating issues forced me to shut down all
of the nodes at the same time and the interdependencies
in the mounts caused the bringup to be slow. :->