On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:24:03PM +0000, Alex Zbyslaw wrote: > Tillman Hodgson wrote: > > >If that still holds true in the -current src, the second mount will > >*definitely* cause me backup problems. I may have to move to keeping the > >NFS export always mounted, which is not ideal. > > Could you use something like ssh to transfer the files rather than > needing NFS? (I don't know if you mentioned what the NFS-end box was...).
That's a good idea. In this case the NFS-end box is an Infrant appliance so I don't think I can use scp. I'll check deeper into it -- if it can do scp, that gives me more options. > I'm also not clear why you think that keeping the NFS partition mounted > all the time is so bad. If there is no access then surely the overhead > is minimal. That's true, there's no real performance hit. It's not the overhead I'm worried about, it's minimizing the exposure of the backups volume to problems. A network filesystem that isn't mounted is one that's much harder to accidently rm files from and such :-) > Your other alternative is to use lockfiles to control when things get > mounted/unmounted. If the control file is locked, you wait until it's > unlocked (or bomb with an error, whatever). Trivial in perl, and > lockf(1) looks like the way to go with shell. That's the scripting magic that I mentioned. It looks like this is likely the best solution with my current volume arrangement. In hindsight, I think should've used three shares instead of one and then the daily, weekly and monthly mounts wouldn't conflict with each other. -T -- You cannot manipulate a marionette with only one string. - The Zensunni Whip _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"