Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> Cc: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Default retry behaviour for mount_nfs Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107192247320.73652-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107192236130.26208-100000@smtp.gnf.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. Not if it adds work. Oddly enough, one of the few virtues BSD Unix has is that it's very conservative. Well, we could argue this forever- and both of us would be right! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0107192247320.73652-100000>