Hi, thank you all for the discussion.
> /home directories is a classic example to have it hard or soft > mounted ... there seem to be good points to doing it both ways.. The statement above was the main reason why I asked my question. We use NFS to mount the /home directories as well as some /Data partitions where users can write the output data of their computer simulations. >Basically, the difference between "hard" and "soft" is: > >* "hard" -- "I need this filesystem" >-> If this filesystem becomes unavailable you will hang until it is >available again, but when it comes back you will not have lost data, >unless something really weird happened on the server side, *or* your own >system lost power or was otherwise rebooted. > >* "soft" -- "I don't really need this" >-> If this filesystem becomes unavailable you will lose any unsaved data >in fairly short order, but your own system will continue to function. I was wondering, whether there would be any more damage to the fs if a connection died than just one corrupted file. Hence, I guess, I will mount the partitions soft, so to just spoil the job of one user and still having the network up and running for all the other folks. Thanx! Hauke > hi ya peter... > > **oops... maybe i should have added a few more assumptions.. > - i think the results would vary depending on what happened > to make the remote fs go offline > > if the remote hard mounted system goes down for some reason > ( power failure, reboot, etc... > - than you lose data on the remote machine > > if the admin simply disconnected the remote machine ethernet > cable and move it to another port, nothing is lost if > they reconnect it in time ... > - but you do wait till the remote fs come back online > > the remote fs can also become unavailable because someobody > stopped autofs and try to restart ... ( a bad thing to do > when the remote fs is in use ( say /home is a good example ) .. > but people get into odd positions ... > - cant login or ls or anything and gets worst when > somebody decides to restart the automounters > > - lots of whacky stuff... time to a good network policy > > i think/claim you lose unsaved data for hard or soft mounts > if the remote fs does not come back in time ... also, you might > have to unlock the file for more editing depending > on which editor you used ( local or remote editor ) to edit the > files before the remote fs went "temporarily offline" > > for hardmounts... the commands that access the remote fs > has to sit and wait... and if not interruptable, you cant > kill the hung job either.... and more and more commands > might get hung ( df, ls /remote_fs/... etc ) and your pc gets > slower and slower... > - am assuming hardmounts are interruptable... > some are ..some are not... > > ls /remote_fs/* on a remote server will hang till > it comes back... but should be interruptable > > i like soft mounts.... since i do lots of df and ls commands > across many machines > > /home directories is a classic example to have it hard or soft > mounted ... there seem to be good points to doing it both ways.. > > -- well..anyway... i agree with you peter.. > > have fun linuxing > alvin > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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 ... > > > > Baloney. > > > > Basically, the difference between "hard" and "soft" is: > > > > * "hard" -- "I need this filesystem" > > -> If this filesystem becomes unavailable you will hang until it is > > available again, but when it comes back you will not have lost data, > > unless something really weird happened on the server side, *or* your own > > system lost power or was otherwise rebooted. > > > > * "soft" -- "I don't really need this" > > -> If this filesystem becomes unavailable you will lose any unsaved data > > in fairly short order, but your own system will continue to function. > > > > -hpa
