From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: stuck/hung nfsv4 mounts Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:37:14 -0500 Message-ID: <1225733834.6958.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <1225724721.2247.29.camel@brian-laptop> <1225731544.6958.6.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20081103172529.GA9008@citi.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: "Brian J. Murrell" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Jim Rees Return-path: Received: from mail-out1.uio.no ([129.240.10.57]:47415 "EHLO mail-out1.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751528AbYKCRhV (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:37:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081103172529.GA9008@citi.umich.edu> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 12:25 -0500, Jim Rees wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > BTW: NFSv4 + soft == BAD BAD BAD! > > Maybe this combination should be prohibited. Does it make any sense given > the stateful nature of v4? It might make sense if we were to fix up the granularity of the recovery routines so that we are able to recover all the state associated with just a single open owner or lock owner. Currently we'd have to recover all the state associated with that server. IOW: we might be able to fix things up in the future, but right now, NFSv4+soft is not a good idea. Trond