SUMMARY: automount vs. nfs mount

From: Saeed Mostofizadeh (
Date: Thu Aug 15 1996 - 08:49:42 CDT

My original posting:

> Hello,
> There is big interest at my site to use automounting vs. nfs mount.
> I was wondering if there are situation that you do not want to use
> automounting.
> I will summarize.
> --
> Thank you
> Saeed (

And here is a compiled results: (Robin Sinclair) wrote:

The _only_ advantage of automount over nfs mount as far as I am aware
is ease-of-administration ; there is no technical/performance
You want to avoid automounter if (like my site) there are plenty of
NFS servers who are being switched on and off/ rebooted / disconneected
from the network for demos etc.

Bob Fulwiler <> wrote:

When you have a file system that will be accessed frequently on
relatively few machines, or it is a system wide usage fs, use nfs
mount and save some time and overhead. If you have directories that
be accessed less frequently or ony may machines at infrequent intervals
use automount.

Justin Young <> wrote:

You should use automount for users' home directories and permanent mount
(both are nfs) for applications. You don't want your applications
interrupted because of some small glitch or an idiot pulling out a
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Gregory M Polanski) wrote:

Let me summarize my view of automounting and NIS

        LOVE IT

More importantly, automounting simplifies the administration of
a set of workstations. In our work world, any user can login
to any machine and get the same environment!

We use auto_master and several maps for
        home directories
        project directories
        3rd party software tools
        shareware source directories

All of this is controlled from the NIS master, just ONE machine !!

The network is also more tolerant of system crashes since the
automounter unmounts directories that are not being used.
The server may not be needed, when it crashes and recovers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (John Malick) wrote:

You really only want to use automounting with read-only type files

There are other situations where we use automounting, ie. user home
non-important file systems. In otherwords, you probably to do want to
automount file systems where databases are stored or active/important

The reason is that after a timeout period of 10 minutes, default, the
removes the mount and it is possible, not very probable, that some data
corruption may occur.

Good luck and you may want to read Sun's infodoc 11990 for automounter
and such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (David Gillam) wrote:

I personally do not like automounts, because it makes troubleshooting
user problems very difficult. I never really know what the environment
was when the error occurred! We therefore stick to static NFS mounts.
When a user problem occurs, it is a quick and simple effort to track
down the cause (generally).

I know others have differing opinions, but there's mine! :-)

Asim Zuberi <> wrote:

its only your scripts....which goes into the particular file
system and do a maintenance job. That can be work around have
to define cd to that particular file system.

I personally think automount is much better than nfs mount.

John Bradley <>

Some applications wont trigger automounting, especially if your doing
file browsing. You have to type the direct path or you have to go to a
command tool and do an ls of that dir to get it to mount. I encountered
this with WABI Applicaitons and AutoCAD.

Automount still has a lot of advantages. Like using them in auto_direct
maps with NIS+. One config file, you don't have to go to each machine
and change the vfstab.


Thank you Saeed (

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:11:08 CDT