From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Apr 14 11:11:06 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA27805 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:11:06 -0700 Received: from aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw ([140.109.40.248]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA27793 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:10:59 -0700 Received: (from taob@localhost) by aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw (8.6.11/8.6.9) id CAA01719; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 02:10:42 +0800 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 02:10:42 +0800 (CST) From: Brian Tao To: Network Coordinator cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Processes not dying! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 14 Apr 1995, Network Coordinator wrote: > > Yes, they were in a D wait. The bogus mount was most likely > wuarchive.wustl.edu because at about 5 pm the last couple of days their > system has been too busy to deal with NFS packets correctly. Doesn't wuarchive suggest soft, interruptible mounts for exactly this reason? On that subject, is there any disadvantage to mounting NFS drives soft,intr? Could be make mount_nfs default to these two options, or would that be going against some long-standing UNIX tradition? -- Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org