[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: "mapping drives"; autofs issues



On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 09:03, James Pifer wrote:
> I have a handful of machines running Linux (mostly FC3) and Windows (2K
> and XP). On my laptop I have FC3. I'm having a lot of problems with
> keeping drives "mapped" or mounted. Here's what I'm currently doing. 
> 
> On all the linux machines samba is installed, and my userid has admin
> access to root so I can get to the whole drive and pretty much do what I
> want. On windows I just use the admin shares. 
> 
> On my laptop I'm running autofs and have all the mounts setup in
> auto.misc. Right now I'm using fstype=smbfs. The problem is that
> sometimes the mount will get hosed up, maybe the other machine crashed
> or was not accessible for one reason or another. When this happens I
> have to try and figure out how to kill whatever process is hosing it up
> so I can try to restart autofs. Sometimes I can do it, other times I
> can't. When I can't have to logout or restart completely, very annoying.
> 
> On a Windows machine it will not have a problem with the same share.
> Windows appears to do a better job of handling this situation. It seems
> to more easily reconnect automatically. 
> 
> Besides that problem, I've also had problems copying large amounts of
> data over these mount points. I don't have any exact errors to quote at
> the moment, but they fail consistently. 
> 
> I've looked at NFS as an option as well, but I've had permission issues
> with that. I'd like to have full access on the drives. Creating a samba
> share and granting admin access fits what I want. 
> 
> Can anyone suggest any better ways of doing this? I hate to compare it
> to windows but on my windows machines I can map the same shares on any
> of my other windows machines or Linux machines (using samba), and the
> mappings are always accessible or reconnect once the machine in question
> is available. 
> 
> Any help is appreciated. 
> 
> James
> 
> 
<bump>

Anyone suggest a better, more stable way of doing this?

Thanks,
James


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]