Tim Cutts wrote: > > On 3 Jul 2008, at 2:38 pm, Prentice Bisbal wrote: > >> Here's another reason to use tarballs: I have /usr/local shared to all >> my systems with with NFS. > > Heh. Your view of local is different from mine. On my systems > /usr/local is local to the individual system. We do have NFS mounted > software of the kind you describe, but we stopped putting it in > /usr/local because users got confused thinking it was really local to > the machine. We now have a separate automounted /software directory for > all that stuff.
See my other post. The FHS says it's okay for both /opt and /usr/local to be shared over NFS, but I wouldn't do both. For me /usr/local = NFS share, /opt = local to machine. Why do users need to know what's local and what isn't? All that matters is they need to know the path to a file. (It's logical location, and not it's physical location). That's the beauty of the Unix filesystem hierarchy: everything is arranged logically, not physically. No drive letters, etc. In a properly configured environment, things should just work for the users. I'm speaking in general terms, for HPC where disk or network I/O can be significant factors physical location is important. But that's usually for *data*, not the binary running, which is usually read once, and stays in memory for the remainder of it's execution. -- Prentice _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
