From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 19 22:38:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo.feral.com [192.67.166.79]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1210237B409 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:38:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from beppo (mjacob@beppo [192.67.166.79]) by beppo.feral.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6K5cKS75516; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:38:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:38:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob X-Sender: mjacob@beppo Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Gordon Tetlow Cc: Ian Dowse , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Default retry behaviour for mount_nfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > So the question is - should I keep the new behaviour that is probably > > > a better default and will catch out fewer new users but may surprise > > > some experienced users, or should I revert to the traditional > > > default where `-R1' or `-b' are required to avoid boot-time hangs? > > > > > > > Sorry- let me be clearer: > > > > FWIW, I vote that we rever to the traditional default and require -R1 or -b to > > avoid boot time hangs. The standard behaviour for most NFS implementations > > that I'm aware of would do this. > > I was playing with a RedHat 7.1 box (kernel 2.4.x) and it continued along > after it failed to mount and NFS server. Did it background? > I personally think the non-blocking behavior is better. In some cases, yes, in some cases, no. It's POLA to change it. If I don't care about an FS, I'll set it to be -bg. -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message