Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Peter Mutsaers <plm@xs4all.nl> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.2-s nfsv3/udp server daily panic Message-ID: <199909011832.LAA37563@apollo.backplane.com> References: <87emgkf233.fsf@totally-fudged-out-message-id> <87btbnkxss.fsf@muon.xs4all.nl>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
:>> "AGB" == Alex G Bulushev <bag@sinbin.demos.su> writes:
:
: >> If you are running softupdates, try turning it off (but I doubt this
: >> is the problem).
:
: AGB> we dont run softupdate because of posible problems with nfs+softupdate
:
:Hmm, I intend to setup a FreeBSD NFS server, and was planning to use
:softupdates. What problems are there with nfs+softupdate? If these are
:in -stable, are they also in -current?
:
:
:Peter Mutsaers
I haven't encountered any problems with NFS serving a softupdates
filesystem verses NFS serving a normal filesystem. This isn't to say
that there aren't any bugs in NFS - there are - but exporting a
softupdates filesystem verses a non-softupdates filesystem should not
make it any worse.
However, you should note one thing: softupdates bends the NFS spec
considerably by not being able to guarentee synchronization, which may
throw the clients slightly out of whack if the server crashes and
reboots.
That said, all of my NFS exports are of softupdates-enabled filesystems
and that has never caused a problem for me.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909011832.LAA37563>