* Oliver Fromme (o...@lurza.secnetix.de) wrote: > This is an excerpt from Solaris' mount_nfs(1M) manpage: > > File systems that are mounted read-write or that con- > tain executable files should always be mounted with > the hard option. Applications using soft mounted file > systems may incur unexpected I/O errors, file corrup- > tion, and unexpected program core dumps. The soft > option is not recommended. > > FreeBSD's manual page doesn't contain such a warning, but > maybe it should. (It contains a warning not to use "soft" > with NFSv4, though, for different reasons.)
Interesting, I'll try disabling it. However now I really wonder why is such dangerous option available (given it's the cause) at all, especially without a notice. Silent data corruption is possibly the worst thing to happen ever. However, without soft option NFS would be a strange thing to use - network problems is kinda inevitable thing, and having all processes locked in a unkillable state (with hard mounts) when it dies is not fun. Or am I wrong? > Also note that the "nolockd" option means that processes > on different clients won't see each other's locks. That > means that you will get corruption if they rely on > locking. I know - I have no processes that use locks on that filesystems. Also there's only a single client. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amd...@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amd...@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"