From: David Dougall Subject: file system handle Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:12:28 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1CdrsT-0002uk-OZ for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:12:45 -0800 Received: from postal1.et.byu.edu ([128.187.122.131]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CdrsT-0008Ml-Aw for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:12:45 -0800 Received: from lewis.et.byu.edu (lewis.et.byu.edu [128.187.112.50]) by postal1.et.byu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBDFCSSn030375 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:12:28 -0700 To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: I am moving filesystems/disks to new NFS servers. They are going to change major and minor numbers. Is there any way I can prevent stale mounts with the fsid= option in the exports? I have tried this on a test environment, but when I try to create an fsid= option, it completely changes the filehandle format in the nfs packet. Am I missing something, or are the default and forced fsid options incompatible? --David Dougall ------------------------------------------------------- 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