From: "Lever, Charles" <Charles.Lever@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: Re: broken umount -f
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:04:58 -0800
Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <6440EA1A6AA1D5118C6900902745938E07D551FA@black.eng.netapp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
To: "'Scott Mcdermott'" <smcdermott@questra.com>
Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net

> I'm sure it *will* work with the `intr' mount option.  But I 
> don't want
> my users to be able to corrupt their own data just because I 
> decided to
> bounce to server for whatever reason.  Their IO to that filesystem
> should hang, uninterruptibly, as is the conventional wisdom 
> (that hard,
> nointr is the Right Way), and I agree with.

do you know what the risk of data corruption is when using "intr"?
seems pretty low to me.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Take your first step towards giving 
your online business a competitive advantage. Test-drive a Thawte SSL 
certificate - our easy online guide will show you how. Click here to get 
started: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0027en
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs