Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Default retry behaviour for mount_nfs Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107200931360.82722-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <3B585C76.696F1E2A@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > So the question is - should I keep the new behaviour that is probably > > > a better default and will catch out fewer new users but may surprise > > > some experienced users, or should I revert to the traditional > > > default where `-R1' or `-b' are required to avoid boot-time hangs? > > > > > > > Sorry- let me be clearer: > > > > FWIW, I vote that we rever to the traditional default and require > > -R1 or -b to avoid boot time hangs. The standard behaviour for most > > NFS implementations that I'm aware of would do this. > > I agree; people at work have bitched about this. We have a > FreeBSD NFS server that's flakey. > > The other thing is that it appears to break amd behaviour. > > (I couldn't tell which of the two questions he was voting > in favor of, either, since there is one before the "or" and > one after). That's why I submitted a followup after Ian poked me. It's funny- I tend to think of myself as being totally transparent. Why should I need to explain what I meant then? :-) -matt 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.4.21.0107200931360.82722-100000>