On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Ronald Buder wrote: > > This is normal NFS behaviour - if a NFS server doesn't respond, the > > processes accessing it wait in an uninterruptible state. They also do > > not get notification of a problem by a signal.
> That's what I was afraid of... It's a really _bad_ idea to backup NFS mounts. I explicitly exclude all of these in my backup definitions. If at all possible, run a client on the NFS server to backup those filesystems directly. > Is there no way at all to make a job, which has stalled due to > filesystem "restrictions", time out? I wonder if other (network) > filesystems or even storage devices might opt for a similar behaviour. In general when you're waiting for a missing NFS server, your processes are in uninterruptible sleep and a lot of the time they won't even respond to SIGTERM or SIGKILL This is one of the reasons why it's a bad idea to backup a network filesystem instead of doing it directly on the network fileserver. AB ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
