I am curious why using NFS v3, especially when having connection or service reliability issues? V4 is more resilient and copes with slow/unreliable connections better.
Why not standard (these days) NFS v4? Are you avoiding it because of the name spaces preventing you mounting the exports exactly the same way as in v2 or v3? Just curious what motivates people to do the extra legwork to avoid clear benefits of new and improved protocol like NFS. Tomas On Nov 15, 2017 10:13 AM, "Frank Filz" <ffilz...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Or maybe nfs3 with udp. > > You need to be careful of NFS with UDP on high speed networks (Gigabit or > faster), the fragment lifetime is long enough for the 16 bit packet id to > wrap, and the result is painfully slow data transfer with a significant > possibility of data corruption (the checksum is also only 16 bits, so > significant chance of assembling fragments from multiple packets with then > over enough data transfer, an almost certainty of a miss-assembled packet > having a valid checksum). This is not theoretical, I have observed it in > test environments... > > Are you using fcntl locks? > > NFS should recover just fine. What mount options are you using on the > client? What kinds of errors are you seeing? > > Frank > > > On Nov 13, 2017 5:17 PM, "King Beowulf" <kingbeow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 11/13/2017 02:03 PM, michael wrote: > > > > I have an NFS 3 server on a Raspberry Pi 3 Model B. That server for > > > > whatever reason seems to be going down, frequently. > > > > > > > > The clients, how do I trigger recovery when the server comes back up? > > > > Of course, I need to figure out why the server is going down. > > > > Recovery usually involves an umount followed by a mount of the NFS > > > > share. > > > > > > You can try setting up autofs to dynamically mount on access, instead > > > of via CLI or permanently in fstab. That might be a bit more > resilient. > > > > > > -Ed > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > PLUG mailing list > > > PLUG@pdxlinux.org > > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PLUG mailing list > > PLUG@pdxlinux.org > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
