hi ya hauke
> just out of curiosity. In the example by alvin below,
> the file system is mounted 'rw' in the combination with 'soft'.
>
> > local:/etc/auto.master
> > /.autofs /etc/auto.servers --timeout=60
> >
> > local:/etc/auto.servers
> > server1 -fstype=nfs,soft,intr 192.168.1.2:/home/christoph
> > server2 -fstype=nfs,soft,intr 192.168.1.3:/home/SomebodyElse
>
> I heard is was a dangerous thing to do so, because if a connection dies while
> writing to a file on the remote system, this can possibly lead to a corrupted
> file system. Does anybody know more about this?
when the remote fs goes down for more than a few seconds... you're dead
anyway... dont matter ...
- you will lose the edits you did not save ...
if the "corruption" is because you have to run e2fsck on that partition...
than its just a normal bootup process on a mounted partition that went
down improperly...
if you do see corrupted fs .. a bug report should be posted especially
if it can be duplicated
i think that any manually mounted or automounted remote fs is susceptable
to all kinds of problems... exploits of NFS is what one should worry
about..
and for more fun ..
- cross mounting is the worst...
A hard mounts B:/foo
B hard mounts A:/bar
if either machine dies... both is dead ...
-- never, if possible cross mount each other
- "hard mounted" is bad .... leaves to hung and un-killable apps and will
freeze your machine sooner or later as more an more ls and df hang
waiting for the remote hard mounted machine to come back online
- hard mounted remote fs is good if an only if... you NEED that
remote fs in order to continue working
- soft mounted is good ... you can kill hung process or kill it before
waiting for timeouts
have fun linuxing
alvin
http://www.Linux-1U.net ... 800Gb 1U Raid5[tm] ... 6x 200Gb IDE disks
