On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 12:45:22PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: | * D-Man ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: | ... | > Ok, that makes sense. How about if probability leaves us behind | > and a packet is lost? Does NFS provide any way to correct for | > that or will your filesystem be hosed? | | Thankfully, I forget the details[0]. From experience, no, it won't | be exactly hosed: you'll end up with a .nfs004950384672385721380937 | file that will grow and eventually fill up the partition... nothing | an rm -rf / won't fix. And then there's negative cookies and stale | mounts that require a reboot on most unices I've seen...
Ok. It sounds like it would still result in data loss :-(. | you had to remind me, didn't you? Yes. Sorry. ;-) | [0] it's built on top of RPC, so whatever error-correction mechanism | RPC uses should apply. Plus, NFS does its own caching and stuff... | IIRC. Ok, I think I have a better understanding now. I'm going to be building a couple of diskless xterms soon so I'll get a bunch of experience then. Now suppose just the right packets are lost and the RPC call ends up matching a different, existant, procedure that doesn't have the intended effect <grin> ... sounds like it would be a good idea to make NFS over TCP stable :-). Can I use NFS-root-over-TCP for one of the boxes (I'll have 2, the other I'll leave at "regular" UDP as a "control" system)? -D