On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 12:42, McKown, John wrote: > If you do not recommend the "soft" option (at least for R/W), what else is > possible? If the NFS server "dies" or is unavailable for some reason, does > that mean that all the client boxes which use it should die as well?
Yes. If you're mounting files you need to have read-write, and the underlying filesystem goes away, you absolutely do not want to continue operations with the files you have open. If you do keep going, e.g. with a soft mount, you're looking at Data Corruption City. > I'm > truly curious because I don't use NFS much. In fact, here at work, we don't > use it at all. I do use it at home to cross-connect two Linux/Intel boxes. I'm not a fan of NFS, although I am given to understand that v3 and v4 work a little better than v2 did. AFS has a lot of nice features, but it's intrusive and doesn't work quite like a normal Unix filesystem. GFS looked promising but I haven't really followed it recently. A reasonably-performing distributed read-write filesystem with Unix semantics would be a wonderful thing...but I don't know of any such thing. Adam
