From: "Lever, Charles" <Charles.Lever@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: async vs. sync
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:36:41 -0800
Message-ID: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C61130435EBDF@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Cc: <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>
To: "Dan Stromberg" <strombrg@dcs.nac.uci.edu>
Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net

> On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 19:53, Lever, Charles wrote:
> > > > not to mention "soft" mounts are also truly the spawn of satan.
> > >=20
> > > Unless your filesystem is also readonly...
> >=20
> > unfortunately that is a myth.  even a readonly file system can fall=20
> > victim to the evils of soft mounts, i'm told.
>=20
> Ummmm...  How?
>=20
> About all that can happen, is you lose the mount.  You pretty much
> -can't- toast any data.
>=20
> > the cached version of the file on the client can become=20
> corrupted if=20
> > the file is changing remotely and one or more cache-refresh reads=20
> > times out.
>=20
> In which case it wasn't truly read only....

let's be precise.

there is only one case where a soft mount won't cause data corruption.
that is when the local file system on the server is mounted read only
and exported read only, and the client mounts the NFS export read only.

maybe good for sharing CD-ROMs via NFS, but otherwise not terribly
useful.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs