Re: Detectiong Network and umount / mount NFS

[Rudy Zijlstra <rudy@edsons.demon.nl>]

Peter =C5strand wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Rudy Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>>> Umm... Perhaps because there is a general consensus among NFS=20
>>>> developers
>>>> that throwing away people's data, and killing off their processes
>>>> without their consent might be a bad thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that it's hard to get rid of the mount even if you=20
>>> want. There is no --force-I-really-want-this.
>>
>>
>> read up on lazy unmount
>
>
> As I understand it, lazy umounts are not the same thing as forced=20
> umounts. With lazy umounts, the process still hangs. With Solaris-type=20
> forced umounts, the programs will get an error (EIO).
>
True, it may still solve the problem of the OP.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI.
Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in
creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime in=
fo,
new features, or free trial, at: http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs