Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761361AbXHXQQR (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:16:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755211AbXHXQQG (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:16:06 -0400 Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]:44412 "EHLO mexforward.lss.emc.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754988AbXHXQQF (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:16:05 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 3964 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:16:05 EDT Message-ID: <46CEF49A.2050105@emc.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:09:14 -0400 From: Ric Wheeler User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: John Stoffel , Peter Staubach , Robin Lee Powell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS hang + umount -f: better behaviour requested. References: <20070820225415.GL3956@digitalkingdom.org> <18123.5699.405125.137517@stoffel.org> <46CB1A78.7040102@redhat.com> <18123.13314.43009.263383@stoffel.org> <20070821192556.GB27995@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20070821192556.GB27995@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.7.6.21134 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=1%, Reason='EMC_FROM_0+ -3, __C230066_P2 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1443 Lines: 33 J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:50:42PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > >> Not in my experience. We use NetApps as our backing NFS servers, so >> maybe my experience isn't totally relevant. But with a mix of Linux >> and Solaris clients, we've never had problems with soft,intr on our >> NFS clients. >> >> We also don't see file corruption, mysterious executables failing to >> run, etc. >> >> Now maybe those issues are raised when you have a Linux NFS server >> with Solaris clients. But in my book, reliable NFS servers are key, >> and if they are reliable, 'soft,intr' works just fine. >> > > The NFS server alone can't prevent the problems Peter Staubach refers > to. Their frequency also depends on the network and the way you're > using the filesystem. (A sufficiently paranoid application accessing > the filesystem could function correctly despite the problems caused by > soft mounts, but the degree of paranoia required probably isn't common.) > Would it be sufficient to insure that that application always issues an fsync() before closing any recently written/updated file? Is there some other subtle paranoid techniques that should be used? ric - 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/