From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 19 22:46:13 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.gnf.org (firewall.gnf.org [208.44.31.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F87337B408 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:46:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gordont@gnf.org) Received: by mail.gnf.org (Postfix, from userid 888) id 1305111E50D; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gnf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F5911A56A; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:41:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Gordon Tetlow To: Matthew Jacob Cc: Ian Dowse , 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, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > 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? Hmm, I don't believe so. It was a temporary network glitch (damn flaky distribution switch) and the user wasn't able to login via xdm (his home directory was on the NFS partition in question). > > 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. Hmm, maybe we should implement the notion of "critical_local" and "critical_net" filesystems (a la NetBSD). Heck, I don't even need the distinction between net and local, just critical would do. All remote, critical filesystems would be blocking, and all others not. Sometimes the stick of POLA should be broken. -gordon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message