>>>>> " " == Richard Ems <r.ems@gmx.net> writes:
> Are the possible file corruptions or differences with the
> "soft" option supposed to be there? If so it's a very dangerous
> option! While running my tests yesterday night I got a couple
> of "nfs: server 'hostname' not responding" and some of the
> corrupted files were at these times, but not all of them. I
> was running the same tests as explained above (but with
> "soft,timeo=30" and without the rsize and wsize options), and I
> got 28 from 40 files corrupted. 13 of them where at the same
> time as the server was not responding (why not??? no idea!) but
> the other 15 became corrupted at other times!
Yes. I've heard a couple of the Sun engineers bemoan the 'soft' mount
option and state that it should never have been invented...
Normally if the partition is soft mounted, an NFS operation is allowed
to fail upon the first major timeout and will send the '-EIO' error
back to the application.
If you are using soft mounts, and are not checking the read/write
errors, then that is indeed a bug in your program...
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 07 2000 - 21:00:08 EST