[RFC,PATCH 0/4] Dynamic Pseudo Root

[Steve Dickson]

Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday December 7, bfields at fieldses.org wrote:
> As for scalability - the best thing to do is try it.  As I understand
> it, Linux --bind mounts are quite light-weight and having thousands of
> them may not be a problem at all.
Interesting... there is still the ugliness of all the mounts
showing up in /proc/mounts... 
 
> 
>> I assume the only reason that would happen is by accident.  But we
>> should make sure it doesn't make things any worse than it has to.
> 
> If we need to ensure there is only one mountd (which sounds like a
> good idea anyway), it is hardly difficult to achieve that (lock files
> etc).
Either avoid it starting multiple mountds or embrace it. Meaning, 
maybe it make senses make mountd multiple threaded?? 

> 
> The idea of having mountd in a private namespace is not one that
> appeals to me.  It is complexity from the perspective of the sysadmin
> and that should be avoided if possible.
> So if there was a clear need for a separate namespace, then I wouldn't
> object.  But until that need were demonstrated (and documented:-) I
> wouldn't be keen on the idea.
I think the idea was to hide the ugliness of all the mounting going
on by the scenes, but I agree, this may not be the best approach.

steved.