From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 12 19:09:01 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C41C1065774; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:09:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amdmi3@amdmi3.ru) Received: from smtp.timeweb.ru (smtp.timeweb.ru [92.53.116.15]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C801A8FC13; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [213.148.20.85] (helo=hive.panopticon) by smtp.timeweb.ru with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ng0sf-0002j0-Kl; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:08:45 +0300 Received: from hades.panopticon (hades.panopticon [192.168.0.32]) by hive.panopticon (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8898B860; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:08:48 +0300 (MSK) Received: by hades.panopticon (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A413CB829; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:08:48 +0300 (MSK) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:08:48 +0300 From: Dmitry Marakasov To: Oliver Fromme Message-ID: <20100212190848.GF94665@hades.panopticon> References: <20100212180032.GC94665@hades.panopticon> <201002121820.o1CIKohU019226@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201002121820.o1CIKohU019226@lurza.secnetix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS write corruption on 8.0-RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:09:01 -0000 * Oliver Fromme (olli@lurza.secnetix.de) wrote: > I'm sorry for the confusion ... I do not think that it's > the cause for your data corruption, in this particular > case. I just mentioned the potential problems with "soft" > mounts because it could cause additional problems for you. > (And it's important to know anyhow.) Oh, then I really misunderstood. If the curruption implied is like when you copy a file via NFS and the net goes down, and in case of soft mount you have half of a file (read: corruption), while with hard mount the copy process will finish when the net is back up, that's definitely OK and expected. > Well, this is what happens if the network hangs: > > 1. With "hard" mounts (the default), processes that access > NFS shares are locked for as long as the network is down. > > 2. With "soft" mounts, binaries can coredump, and many > programs won't notice that write access just failed which > leads to file corruption. > > Personally I definitely prefer the first. Yeah, but I have mostly desktop<->(NAS w/torrents) setup so I prefer the second. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru