Re: Giving up an NFS fs that wasn't available initially?

From: Tzafrir Cohen (tzafrir_at_nonexisting.hamakor.org.il)
Date: Tue 25 May 2004 - 21:16:46 IDT


On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:43:48PM +0300, Ehud Karni wrote:

> As for `soft' Vs. `hard' parameter (see Oron mail) - When you use the
> `hard' option and the server goes down (after it was mounted) - your
> load may go to (almost) infinite value

Why is that?

Any process that tries to access the mounted filesystem gets into the
infamous D state.But is a process in such a state considered as "ready"
for the calculation of the load? Isn't the load avarage the avarage of
the run queue of the CPU?

> , and there is no way to umount it,

So what, exactly , is 'umount -l' in that sense? Can it be of any use?

> OTOH, when it comes up again, any waiting I/O completes successfully
> as if no interruption occurred. Use this option CAREFULLY. I use it only
> on mounts of a critical file server.

Then why is it the default? :-0

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen                       +---------------------------+
http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend|
mailto:tzafrir_at_technion.ac.il       +---------------------------+
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request_at_linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request_at_linux.org.il


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue 25 May 2004 - 21:25:18 IDT