From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: timeo & retrans, smaller max timeout than 60 seconds? Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:07:59 -0500 Message-ID: <1143644879.7928.44.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <1143641272.7928.13.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FOcHW-0001uE-Db for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:08:22 -0800 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.6] ident=7411) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1FOcHU-0003e3-Lx for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:08:22 -0800 To: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C5strand?= In-Reply-To: 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: On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 16:33 +0200, Peter =C3=85strand wrote: > > The maximum timeout for TCP is 600 seconds, i.e. 10 minutes. >=20 > Does this mean that the manpage statement "The maximum timeout is always=20 > 60 seconds." is incorrect? Yes. > >> If we start using, say, retrans=3D1, does this mean that applicatio= ns can > >> recieve EIO after as little as 1 second? > > > > No. "timeo" controls the timeout value. "retrans" controls the number o= f > > retransmissions before a major timeout is declared. >=20 > Yes, but the manpage states that EIO is reported when a major timeout=20 > occurs. So, the time until EIO must be influenced by "retrans", right? It is influenced by _both_. timeo sets the timeout value for a single retransmission. retrans sets the number of retransmissions in a major timeout. > >> * Is it true that all the "-f" option to umount does is skip trying > >> MOUNTPROC_UMNT? > > > > No. '-f' causes all pending RPC calls to be cancelled (and return -EIO)= . >=20 > Is MOUNTPROC_UMNT tried even when -f is specified? I believe so. > >> * About "intr": The man page says "If an NFS file operation has a majo= r > >> timeout and it is hard mounted". Does "intr" affect soft mounts in = any > >> way, or is it better to remove it? > > > > Intr changes the set of signals that are able to interrupt an RPC call. > > It has nothing to do with "soft". >=20 > That is - it has no effect when "soft" is used? No. I mean that it has the same effect whether you use "soft" or "hard". Intr controls signals, not timeouts. Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs