Re: NFS. [ Was: Re: nfs mount error ]

2003-06-16 Thread Alvin Oga
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Jon Haugsand wrote: > * Alvin Oga > > add soft to your mount options, so that the sytem can keep going > > vs using hard mount which waits for the remotefs to come back online > > - i rather use/risk soft mounts than to sit and wait > > in a hung state ... the pc is

Re: NFS. [ Was: Re: nfs mount error ]

2003-06-16 Thread Jon Haugsand
* Alvin Oga > add soft to your mount options, so that the sytem can keep going > vs using hard mount which waits for the remotefs to come back online > - i rather use/risk soft mounts than to sit and wait > in a hung state ... the pc is useless in that state anyway > > - and over

Re: NFS. [ Was: Re: nfs mount error ]

2003-06-16 Thread Alvin Oga
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Jon Haugsand wrote: > * Shaul Karl > > Just wondering: have you considered a replacement? Maybe you dropped it > > all together? For some reason I believe that the 2.5 kernel > > configuration help are not suggesting CODA in the strong way that the > > 2.4 used to. Does NFS

Re: NFS. [ Was: Re: nfs mount error ]

2003-06-16 Thread Jon Haugsand
* Shaul Karl > Just wondering: have you considered a replacement? Maybe you dropped it > all together? For some reason I believe that the 2.5 kernel > configuration help are not suggesting CODA in the strong way that the > 2.4 used to. Does NFS v4 much better then v3? Haven't tried, really. Jus

NFS. [ Was: Re: nfs mount error ]

2003-06-16 Thread Shaul Karl
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:12:53AM +0200, Jon Haugsand wrote: > > Nfs is a pain in the ... > Just wondering: have you considered a replacement? Maybe you dropped it all together? For some reason I believe that the 2.5 kernel configuration help are not suggesting CODA in the strong way that the