Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 21:57:21 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Cc: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Subject: RFC: Should intr/soft NFSv4 mounts be disabled? Message-ID: <YQBPR0101MB974216B2F2B1DCFF976D2065DDBD9@YQBPR0101MB9742.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,=0A= =0A= NFSv4 mounts using the "soft" and/or "intr" mount options=0A= have never functioned correctly. This is noted in the BUGS=0A= section of "man mount_nfs" and commit c0d14b0220ae=0A= added the generation of a warning message when such=0A= a mount is done. The breakage can occur when the server=0A= is slow/overloaded or network partitioned such that the RPC=0A= reply is not received for over 1 second, resulting in the RPC=0A= attempt to fail without the RPC reply being processed.=0A= =0A= Breakage of the protocol has become more frequent for=0A= NFSv4.1/4.2 mounts since, when a syscall returns before=0A= the RPC reply is processed, it leaves the session slot for the=0A= RPC non-usable. When all slots are non-usable, the mount=0A= is hung.=0A= =0A= During review of commit c0d14b0220ae, emaste@ asked if=0A= NFSv4 mounts using "soft" and/or "intr" should actually=0A= be disabled, so I am now asking others for their opinion=0A= on this? (Doing so will cause many extant mounts in fstab(5)=0A= to fail.)=0A= =0A= Thanks for any comments, rick=0A= =0A=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YQBPR0101MB974216B2F2B1DCFF976D2065DDBD9>