* Oliver Fromme ([email protected]) wrote: > I'm sorry for the confusion ... I do not think that it's > the cause for your data corruption, in this particular > case. I just mentioned the potential problems with "soft" > mounts because it could cause additional problems for you. > (And it's important to know anyhow.)
Oh, then I really misunderstood. If the curruption implied is like when you copy a file via NFS and the net goes down, and in case of soft mount you have half of a file (read: corruption), while with hard mount the copy process will finish when the net is back up, that's definitely OK and expected. > Well, this is what happens if the network hangs: > > 1. With "hard" mounts (the default), processes that access > NFS shares are locked for as long as the network is down. > > 2. With "soft" mounts, binaries can coredump, and many > programs won't notice that write access just failed which > leads to file corruption. > > Personally I definitely prefer the first. Yeah, but I have mostly desktop<->(NAS w/torrents) setup so I prefer the second. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D [email protected] ..: jabber: [email protected] http://www.amdmi3.ru _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
