Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:09:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Kevin Day <toasty@home.dragondata.com> To: kpielorz@tdx.co.uk (Karl Pielorz) Cc: mi@video-collage.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS discovery Message-ID: <199806012309.SAA17484@home.dragondata.com> In-Reply-To: <35730F59.510D55FB@tdx.co.uk> from Karl Pielorz at "Jun 1, 98 09:30:17 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > > NFS hung ups are a strange topic, in my experience. People agree > > that they are "bad", but one is not supposed to complain about > > them... > > I remember having a long conversation with a friend a few years back (can I > get any more vague?) - Where he was praising NFS's ability to crash - as it > assures that say your running a program on a remote system, it will either > run to completion - or hang if the server dies... > This I presume works on the assumption that it helps somehow to have a > client that's 'hung' in mid-air (i.e. at least you know if failed) rather > than risking any corruption that might have been caused by the server > disappearing for a while... > > I think you can change this behaviour - have a look at the man page for > 'mount_nfs' - in particular things like the '-i' option & 'soft' mounting > etc... > My two problems are slightly different though. 1) After enough processes get 'hung', the entire box dies. 2) After the server comes back, the client never recovers. (I'm using both -i and -s) Kevin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806012309.SAA17484>