:
:In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Lambert writes:
:>> FWIW, I vote that we rever to the traditional default and require
:>> -R1 or -b to avoid boot time hangs. The standard behaviour for most
:>> NFS implementations that I'm aware of would do this.
:>
:>I agree; people at work have bitched
Ian Dowse wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Lambert writes:
> >> FWIW, I vote that we rever to the traditional default and require
> >> -R1 or -b to avoid boot time hangs. The standard behaviour for most
> >> NFS implementations that I'm aware of would do this.
> >
> >I agree; peop
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Lambert writes:
>> FWIW, I vote that we rever to the traditional default and require
>> -R1 or -b to avoid boot time hangs. The standard behaviour for most
>> NFS implementations that I'm aware of would do this.
>
>I agree; people at work have bitched about th
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> I'll leave it up to you all to imagine what 'wtf WTF' is.
>
We all know it stands for "what's that for?"... :)
Laurence Berland
http://www.isp.northwestern.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" i
Bill Moran wrote:
>
> > > > Sometimes the stick of POLA should be broken.
>
> Off topic, I know, but it's going to bother me.
>
> What's POLA?
Policy Of Least Astonishment -- doing changes in a way which will annoy
the least number of users.
HTH
-Christoph Sold
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
'Principle of Least Astonishment'
and something we should import from NetBSD:
pilt > uname -a
NetBSD pilt 1.5.1_ALPHA NetBSD 1.5.1_ALPHA (PILT) #5: Thu Feb 8 12:01:03 PST
2001 mjacob@pilt:/export/src/NetBSD-1.5/syssrc/sys/arch/i386/compile/PILT
i386
pilt > /usr/games/wtf POLA
POLA: princi
> > > Sometimes the stick of POLA should be broken.
Off topic, I know, but it's going to bother me.
What's POLA?
-Bill
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > Hmm, maybe we should implement the notion of "critical_local" and
> > "critical_net" filesystems (a la NetBSD). Heck, I don't even need the
> > distinction between net and local, just critical would do. All remote,
> > critical filesystems would be blocking, and all others
> Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > > So the question is - should I keep the new behaviour that is probably
> > > a better default and will catch out fewer new users but may surprise
> > > some experienced users, or should I revert to the traditional
> > > default where `-R1' or `-b' are required to avoid
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > So the question is - should I keep the new behaviour that is probably
> > a better default and will catch out fewer new users but may surprise
> > some experienced users, or should I revert to the traditional
> > default where `-R1' or `-b' are required to avoid boot-time
>
> Hmm, I don't believe so. It was a temporary network glitch (damn flaky
> distribution switch) and the user wasn't able to login via xdm (his home
> directory was on the NFS partition in question).
>
> > > I personally think the non-blocking behavior is better.
> >
> > In some cases, yes, in
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> > > > So the question is - should I keep the new behaviour that is probably
> > > > a better default and will catch out fewer new users but may surprise
>
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So the question is - should I keep the new behaviour that is probably
> > > a better default and will catch out fewer new users but may surprise
> > > some experienced users, or should I revert
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> > So the question is - should I keep the new behaviour that is probably
> > a better default and will catch out fewer new users but may surprise
> > some experienced users, or should I revert to the traditional
> > default where `-R1' or `-b' are re
>
> So the question is - should I keep the new behaviour that is probably
> a better default and will catch out fewer new users but may surprise
> some experienced users, or should I revert to the traditional
> default where `-R1' or `-b' are required to avoid boot-time hangs?
>
Sorry- let me be
FWIW, I vote 'yes' on the question in the last paragraph.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Ian Dowse wrote:
>
> Shortly after the TI-RPC changes in -current, the default retry
> behaviour for mount_nfs was changed. Previously, mount_nfs would
> keep retrying for a long time (~1 week
Shortly after the TI-RPC changes in -current, the default retry
behaviour for mount_nfs was changed. Previously, mount_nfs would
keep retrying for a long time (~1 week) if the server didn't respond,
but since revision 1.40 of mount_nfs.c, it gives up on non-background
mounts after one at
17 matches
Mail list logo
