Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:08:48 +0300 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> To: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS write corruption on 8.0-RELEASE Message-ID: <20100212190848.GF94665@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <201002121820.o1CIKohU019226@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <20100212180032.GC94665@hades.panopticon> <201002121820.o1CIKohU019226@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Oliver Fromme (olli@lurza.secnetix.de) wrote: > I'm sorry for the confusion ... I do not think that it's > the cause for your data corruption, in this particular > case. I just mentioned the potential problems with "soft" > mounts because it could cause additional problems for you. > (And it's important to know anyhow.) Oh, then I really misunderstood. If the curruption implied is like when you copy a file via NFS and the net goes down, and in case of soft mount you have half of a file (read: corruption), while with hard mount the copy process will finish when the net is back up, that's definitely OK and expected. > Well, this is what happens if the network hangs: > > 1. With "hard" mounts (the default), processes that access > NFS shares are locked for as long as the network is down. > > 2. With "soft" mounts, binaries can coredump, and many > programs won't notice that write access just failed which > leads to file corruption. > > Personally I definitely prefer the first. Yeah, but I have mostly desktop<->(NAS w/torrents) setup so I prefer the second. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100212190848.GF94665>