Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:38:20 -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.4.21.0107192236410.73652-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107192226420.26208-100000@smtp.gnf.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0107192236410.73652-100000>