On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:24:03PM +0000, Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
> Tillman Hodgson wrote:
>
> >If that still holds true in the -current src, the second mount will
> >*definitely* cause me backup problems. I may have to move to keeping the
> >NFS export always mounted, which is not ideal.
>
> Could you use something like ssh to transfer the files rather than
> needing NFS? (I don't know if you mentioned what the NFS-end box was...).
That's a good idea. In this case the NFS-end box is an Infrant appliance
so I don't think I can use scp. I'll check deeper into it -- if it can
do scp, that gives me more options.
> I'm also not clear why you think that keeping the NFS partition mounted
> all the time is so bad. If there is no access then surely the overhead
> is minimal.
That's true, there's no real performance hit. It's not the overhead I'm
worried about, it's minimizing the exposure of the backups volume to
problems. A network filesystem that isn't mounted is one that's much
harder to accidently rm files from and such :-)
> Your other alternative is to use lockfiles to control when things get
> mounted/unmounted. If the control file is locked, you wait until it's
> unlocked (or bomb with an error, whatever). Trivial in perl, and
> lockf(1) looks like the way to go with shell.
That's the scripting magic that I mentioned. It looks like this is
likely the best solution with my current volume arrangement. In
hindsight, I think should've used three shares instead of one and then
the daily, weekly and monthly mounts wouldn't conflict with each other.
-T
--
You cannot manipulate a marionette with only one string.
- The Zensunni Whip
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
