Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762713AbXHUROk (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:14:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762074AbXHURO3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:14:29 -0400 Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.9]:33364 "EHLO mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761467AbXHURO2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:14:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:14:23 -0700 To: Peter Staubach Cc: John Stoffel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS hang + umount -f: better behaviour requested. Message-ID: <20070821171423.GQ3956@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20070820225415.GL3956@digitalkingdom.org> <18123.5699.405125.137517@stoffel.org> <46CB1A78.7040102@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46CB1A78.7040102@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Robin Lee Powell Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1573 Lines: 35 On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:01:44PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > John Stoffel wrote: > >Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here > >Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten > >Robin> better in Linux recently, so I have been (for my $dayjob) > >Robin> testing the behaviour of NFS (autofs NFS, specifically) under > >Robin> Linux with hard,intr and using iptables to simulate a hang. > > > >So why are you mouting with hard,intr semantics? At my current > >SysAdmin job, we mount everything (solaris included) with > >'soft,intr' and it works well. If an NFS server goes down, > >clients don't hang for large periods of time. > > Wow! That's _really_ a bad idea. NFS READ operations which > timeout can lead to executables which mysteriously fail, file > corruption, etc. NFS WRITE operations which fail may or may not > lead to file corruption. > > Anything writable should _always_ be mounted "hard" for safety > purposes. Readonly mounted file systems _may_ be mounted "soft", > depending upon what is located on them. Does write + tcp make this any different? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/