Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:25:39 -0500 (EST) From: spork <spork@super-g.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com> Cc: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely.de>, Kevin Day <toasty@home.dragondata.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS thoughts Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.00.9812141813330.10184-100000@super-g.inch.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812141150391.27793-100000@bright.fx.genx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > why would you mount _both_ soft and intr? to me they seem mutually > exclusive. Well, if one hangs and doesn't respond to ^C, and then the other doesn't either, why not try both? ;) > 'intr' allows you to intrupt a hung NFS proc so that it recives a > transient error on a filesystem call, the process will hang forever unless > NFS comes back, or you ^C it Theoretically. I would type something like "df" or "mount", and then that was the end of it. If I recall the process was in the state "vfswait"(?) in ps. If I tried to login, I'd get the motd and then a "NFS server x.x.x.x /var/mail not responding" and the session was locked. > 'soft' automates that with a timeout however signals won't work, but after > some time the process will unhang and get an error on the filesystem call. > > Are you trying to get an auto-timeout like mount with that ability to ^C? I think that would be great. However, I'd settle for either one working with v3. Since I've moved to v2 and udp, everything seems better. I can down the nfs interface and continue on my way. If "mount" or friends hangs, a ^C interrupts it... > generally intr is best, the idea of many processes timeing out on NFS > mounts should the server crash, makes my stomach turn. Yeah, this is a pretty simple setup. Just two machines sharing files over a 100Mb private network. I export /var/mail to the shell machine for the convenience of the shell users, and export /home /staff to the mail machine so it can read any .procmailrcs that people have put there. Overall, very little traffic... > <rumor> > btw, didn't the FreeBSD project pay someone big bucks to fix some of these > problems? > </rumor> I haven't heard that, but I'm really surprised no one using it in a commercial environment got tired of buying Sun boxes for NFS serving and commisioned someone to fix things up instead. If I had the cash I'd pony up, file sharing is very nice, especially in a secured environment... Thanks, Charles > > -Alfred > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Charles > > > > > Another issue is that when using NFS with multihomed hosts the client ask on > > > one IP address of the server and the server replies using another of his IPs, > > > so the client is discarding the answers and still waiting. > > > > yuck. > > > > Charles > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.00.9812141813330.10184-100000>