[oclug] samba mount question

[Shawn Barnes]

On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 11:54, Hugh Campbell wrote:

My mistake :( ....I'm able to mount the same share multiple times on one
machine.

The reason for this is that not all of my shares are publicly available,
i have many groups on the samba server (groups are generally by project
and/or dept. and most users are members of multiple projects)...so users
mount the shares they want access to at ~/mnt/samba_server/share (via
LinNeighbourhood).  It is LinNeighbourhood that won't mount a share
multiple times to the same machine.

I was trying not to have to write a huge fstab on the fat server...I'm
looking at 10-15 users/thin client connections on the ltsp server with
each user mounting 3-8 shares (depending on number of groups user in).

I'm trying to figure out hardware for the fat server...what is your
setup, hardware, RAM, CPU for both fat and thins, do you use swap on the
thins or only the fat?  I have a small setup right now to
benchmark....AMD 1Ghz, ata133 RAID 0 (2x30 Gig), 512 RAM as the fat
server and so far 4 thins pII 266 128 Ram, pII 233 64 Ram, and PI 133
32M...I've had no performance reduction running Gnome 2.4, Nautilus,
Firefox, OOo, and frozen bubbles :)...I'm planning on half used for GIS
workstations and other half general office workstations (OOo,mail,web). 

Shawn


> >
> 
> I use LTSP both at home and at work, but I have never attempted what
> you are doing.  All publicly available mounts are mounted by fstab
> and/or root and so are available to everyone logged in to the fat
> server - do you really need to have individual users mounting things?
> 
> You probably do, and there are probably good reasons, but I would be
> curious to know -  in my implementation of LTSP, it never occurred to
> me to do things that way.
> 
> In answer to your question, I don't think there is an issue about
> mounting things twice - I just tested my LTSP server, and have no
> problem mounting the same resource twice - obviously the second one has
> to go onto a different mount point though. Maybe I misunderstood what
> you are doing.
> 
> Hugh