slackhead wrote: > I'm pretty sure 'nofail' is ignored on network shares - happy to be > proved wrong on that however. I have a couple of machines that use nfs > and cifs shares and I don't have problems when the servers are down / > sleeping - just a slower startup and a logged warning. >
Well, nofail is ignored, in as much as the the remote share not being available will not stall the boot process anyway. But, and this is mainly cosmetic, by using nofail and the share not being available, systemd won't mark the mount as having failed and the remote-fs.target as having failed. You have effectively told it that it is allowed to fail without being an error, by using nofail. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JackOfAll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3069 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98544 _______________________________________________ unix mailing list unix@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
