Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 02:10:42 +0800 (CST) From: Brian Tao <taob@aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw> To: Network Coordinator <nc@ain.charm.net> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Processes not dying! Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950415020833.191E-100000@aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950414090033.14236A-100000@ain.charm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 14 Apr 1995, Network Coordinator wrote:
>
> Yes, they were in a D wait. The bogus mount was most likely
> wuarchive.wustl.edu because at about 5 pm the last couple of days their
> system has been too busy to deal with NFS packets correctly.
Doesn't wuarchive suggest soft, interruptible mounts for exactly
this reason? On that subject, is there any disadvantage to mounting
NFS drives soft,intr? Could be make mount_nfs default to these two
options, or would that be going against some long-standing UNIX
tradition?
--
Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao
taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.950415020833.191E-100000>