On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Benjamin Scott wrote: > Hmmmm... Sounds like the server and client lost communication with each > other. NFS is a pain in the a** when that happens; it has a tendency to get > wedged and exhibit precisely the sorts of symptoms you were seeing. > > Despite the popular advice, I really recommend the "soft" option (with a > suitably large "timeo" value) when mounting NFS filesystems. Yes, it means > that a downed NFS server will cause programs depending on it to eventually > receive an I/O error. But I don't see what good the alternative (an endlessly > hung process) does. Ben, PHILISOPHICALLY I agree with you, but PRACTICALLY speaking the problem is that NFS doesn't guarantee that there will be no FS corruption if you use the soft option. This is a Bad Thing. > As far as adding "intr" to "hard" to allow said hung processes to be > interrupted goes: As I see it, it just means you have to manually kill the > processes instead of them getting an error on file I/O. And if the right > system processes are deadlocked because of an NFS error, you may not be able > to login to kill the hung processes. Yep, I've run into that problem. :( Avoid NFS at all cost, if you can. I hate it. [We use it heavily here, much to my chagrin] > Did you do that while NFS was running? NFS doesn't handle the unexpected > very well. I really wish there was a better standard for file sharing under > Unix. Have you tried afs or coda? Anyone? -- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who watches the watchmen?" -Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347 Derek D. Martin | Senior UNIX Systems/Network Administrator Arris Interactive | A Nortel Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter: unsubscribe gnhlug **********************************************************
