On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:01:44PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > John Stoffel wrote: > >Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here > >Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten > >Robin> better in Linux recently, so I have been (for my $dayjob) > >Robin> testing the behaviour of NFS (autofs NFS, specifically) under > >Robin> Linux with hard,intr and using iptables to simulate a hang. > > > >So why are you mouting with hard,intr semantics? At my current > >SysAdmin job, we mount everything (solaris included) with > >'soft,intr' and it works well. If an NFS server goes down, > >clients don't hang for large periods of time. > > Wow! That's _really_ a bad idea. NFS READ operations which > timeout can lead to executables which mysteriously fail, file > corruption, etc. NFS WRITE operations which fail may or may not > lead to file corruption. > > Anything writable should _always_ be mounted "hard" for safety > purposes. Readonly mounted file systems _may_ be mounted "soft", > depending upon what is located on them.
Does write + tcp make this any different? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
