Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!ed
From: ed@mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: hard vs. soft mounts on Suns and Pyramids
Message-ID: <840@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: 28 Apr 89 21:13:51 GMT
References: <15766@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Reply-To: ed@garcia.mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould)
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley
Lines: 22

>And hard mounts are not interruptible, even with the "intr"
>option.

Hard mounts *are* interruptible with the "intr" option.  That's precisely
what the option is for, since soft mounts were always interruptible
in essence.

>Further, it says that "filesystems that are mounted `rw' (read-write)
>should use the `hard' option.  The problem with this is that the entire
>client and all of its processes can hang when one process is trying to
>write on a hard-mounted filesystem when the server is down!  This is a
>terrible situation when the client is a large time-sharing system.

The client shouldn't hang when waiting for a server, only processes
waiting for that server should block.  It's easy to be careless
and depend too heavily on a server, though.

-- 
Ed Gould                    mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
ed@mtxinu.COM		    +1 415 644 0146

"I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady.  I'll fight them as an engineer."