On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 11:10 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:06:36 +0800, Ian Kent said:
> > So, there's a power outage and the UPS had a glitch.
>
> Murphy can get a *lot* more creative than that.
>
> So we'd outgrown the capacity on our UPS and diesel generator, and deci
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:06:36 +0800, Ian Kent said:
> So, there's a power outage and the UPS had a glitch.
Murphy can get a *lot* more creative than that.
So we'd outgrown the capacity on our UPS and diesel generator, and decided
to replace them. So we schedule downtime for a Saturday. Rather sc
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
> > "Peter" == Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Peter> John Stoffel wrote:
> Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here
> Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten
> Robin> better in Linux
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:50:42PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Not in my experience. We use NetApps as our backing NFS servers, so
maybe my experience isn't totally relevant. But with a mix of Linux
and Solaris clients, we've never had problems with soft,intr on our
NF
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:09:14AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> The NFS server alone can't prevent the problems Peter Staubach refers
>> to. Their frequency also depends on the network and the way you're
>> using the filesystem. (A sufficiently paranoid application access
Ric Wheeler wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:50:42PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Not in my experience. We use NetApps as our backing NFS servers, so
maybe my experience isn't totally relevant. But with a mix of Linux
and Solaris clients, we've never had problems with
> "Valdis" == Valdis Kletnieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Valdis> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:50:42 EDT, John Stoffel said:
>> Now maybe those issues are raised when you have a Linux NFS server
>> with Solaris clients. But in my book, reliable NFS servers are key,
>> and if they are reliable, 'so
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:04:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:50:42 EDT, John Stoffel said:
>
> > Now maybe those issues are raised when you have a Linux NFS server
> > with Solaris clients. But in my book, reliable NFS servers are key,
> > and if they are reliable,
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:50:42 EDT, John Stoffel said:
> Now maybe those issues are raised when you have a Linux NFS server
> with Solaris clients. But in my book, reliable NFS servers are key,
> and if they are reliable, 'soft,intr' works just fine.
And you don't need all that ext3 journal overhe
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:50:42PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> Not in my experience. We use NetApps as our backing NFS servers, so
> maybe my experience isn't totally relevant. But with a mix of Linux
> and Solaris clients, we've never had problems with soft,intr on our
> NFS clients.
>
> We al
John Stoffel wrote:
"Peter" == Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> John Stoffel wrote:
Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here
Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten
Robin> better in Linux recently, so I have been
> "Peter" == Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> John Stoffel wrote:
Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here
Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten
Robin> better in Linux recently, so I have been (for my $dayjob)
Robin> testi
Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:01:44PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
John Stoffel wrote:
Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here
Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten
Robin> better in Linux recently, so I have be
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:01:44PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
> John Stoffel wrote:
> >Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here
> >Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten
> >Robin> better in Linux recently, so I have been (for my $dayjob)
> >Ro
To add to the pain, lsof or fuser hang on unresponsive shares.
I wrote my own wrapper to go through the "/proc/" file tables and
find any process using the unresponsive mounts and kill those
processes.This works well.
Also, it brings another point. If the unresponsives problem cannot be
fixed for
John Stoffel wrote:
Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here
Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten
Robin> better in Linux recently, so I have been (for my $dayjob)
Robin> testing the behaviour of NFS (autofs NFS, specifically) under
Robin> Li
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 12:43:47PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> Robin> I've read every man page I could find, and the only nfs option
> Robin> that semes even vaguely helpful is "soft", but everything that
> Robin> mentions "soft" also says to never use it.
>
> I think the man pages are out of dat
Robin> I'm bringing this up again (I know it's been mentioned here
Robin> before) because I had been told that NFS support had gotten
Robin> better in Linux recently, so I have been (for my $dayjob)
Robin> testing the behaviour of NFS (autofs NFS, specifically) under
Robin> Linux with hard,intr an
Robin Lee Powell digitalkingdom.org> writes:
> > Though I agree that it would be nice if we could convince all
> > subsequent requests to a server to fail EIO instead of just the
> > currently active ones. I'm not sure that just changing "umount
> > -f" is the right interface though Maybe
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:27:06AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday August 20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > (cc's to me appreciated)
> >
> > It would be really, really nice if "umount -f" against a hung
> > NFS mount actually worked on Linux. As much as I hate Solaris,
> > I consider it the g
On Monday August 20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (cc's to me appreciated)
>
> It would be really, really nice if "umount -f" against a hung NFS
> mount actually worked on Linux. As much as I hate Solaris, I
> consider it the gold standard in this case: If I say
> "umount -f /mount/that/is/hung" it
(cc's to me appreciated)
It would be really, really nice if "umount -f" against a hung NFS
mount actually worked on Linux. As much as I hate Solaris, I
consider it the gold standard in this case: If I say
"umount -f /mount/that/is/hung" it just goes away, immediately, and
anything still trying to
22 matches
Mail list logo
