What linux lacks most - a decent remote fs

[Ian Chapman]

Bob Kinney wrote:

> 
> (Sorry about the incomplete prior post--stupid yahoo mail)
> 
> I thought that hard NFS mounts were a thing of the past--like the mid '90s.
> Isn't it preferred to set them up with an automounter to prevent panic
> when communication falters?

No in this case hard mounts are when file IO operations are essentially 
blocked if the mounted NFS filesystem does a vanishing trick. The idea 
being that when connectivity is returned, the pending operations 
continue and the process is none the wiser. Conversely soft mounts chuck 
back IO errors to the process which aren't always handled as gracefully 
as perhaps they should be. Sure automounter can reduce the chances of a 
stale or blocked NFS mount as the filesystem isn't always mounted but 
they can occur.


-- 
Ian Chapman.