Quick NFS opinion sought.

Post #21,400 by Meerkat 12/13/01 6:26:55 PM Reply	Quick NFS opinion sought. Is it fair to say that if one machine in an NFS link goes down, the machine on the other end may well be affected? This happened once at a place I used to work. We had an NFS mount to our dev system from our prod system. The dev system went down, taking the prod system with it. I'm just wondering if this was a freak occurrence or if NFS is just like that. Cheers, John. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #21,419 by wharris2 12/13/01 9:56:52 PM Reply	Mine own experience Is it fair to say that if one machine in an NFS link goes down, the machine on the other end may well be affected? Sorry, that statement deserves a "duuuuuh, Mr. Obvious." When a NFS system goes down, anything depending on it won't be able to access it. But I have not heard of a system going down as a result of an inaccessable NFS mount. The system might have been depending on resources on the NFS mount, I suppose. But in general, if a NFS system goes down, all the other systems lose is access to the other system. There's no reason for "The dev system went down, taking the prod system with it." If the production system is depending upon components in the dev system, someone should be fired. That implies the production system is depending upon dev components, which is pure wrong. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #21,427 by Meerkat 12/13/01 10:26:01 PM Reply	Ever read the 'Amelia Bedelia' series? About a girl who took everything far too literally? Not to worry, thanks for your answers. I figured NFS couldn't cause that much flakiness generally, else nobody would use it. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #21,431 by wharris2 12/13/01 10:55:45 PM Reply	Never read But I have been the victim of NFS mounted systems going south. Fucked up development efforts as I tried to access the stuff mounted on the (down) system, but the system I was on was up and going... not that I could do much on the system I was logged into without access to the dev system. The production systems are at worst two or three times removed from the development system, and have no direct connection to the development system. I still maintain that a production system with a dependancy on an NFS mount to a development system is really {bad,stupid,wrong}. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #21,437 by Meerkat 12/13/01 11:23:33 PM Reply	It wasn't (supposed to be) a dependancy I think it was more a 'hey, let's give this a whirl and see if it's more convenient than FTPing files across' thing. After an evening of downtime and a lot of angst, I think they decided that no, it wasn't exactly what you'd call convenient. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #21,661 by static 12/16/01 7:50:20 PM Reply	Someone clearly had a learning experience. It sounds like someone discovered that NFS is not quite entirely unlike FTP. :-) Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #21,442 by kmself 12/13/01 11:50:11 PM Reply	"Soft mount" option IIRC, what you want is the "soft mount" option. As usual, the [link\|http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP/nag/node142.html\|NAG] has a relevent section. Soft mount allows accesses to be interrupted. NFS has a somewhat deserved reputation for being brittle under stress. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #21,826 by boxley 12/18/01 9:57:31 AM Reply	nfs hard mounts when you hard mount a partition via NFS and the exported partition goes away the machine mounting it remotely starts spending more network time and energy to retry finally blogging up. SCO is/was notorious for that. thanx, bill My Dreams arn't as empty as my concience seems to be

Welcome to IWETHEY!