Re: mount.nfs: chk_mountpoint()

[Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>]

Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 04:12:30PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
>   
>> I would guess that not so many people are using the "bg" option,
>> period.  Many of Linux's customers are ex-Sun customers and they
>> were educated to use autofs and to move away from and stay away
>> from static mounts via fstab or vfstab.
>>
>> The "bg" option was a hack added to speed up system booting.
>>     
>
> No, it is indispensable to recover properly from a power outage:
> servers tend to boot slower than clients. Also, it is not unusual to
> have some minor network/server problems after an outage causing the
> mount to fail.
>
> Without the bg option a temporary power outage may render all client
> systems unusable.

And a better solution to this problem is still to use autofs.

That said, what use are the clients _until_ the servers are up?
The applications on them can't run correctly because the file
systems that they depend upon may or may not be there yet.  With
autofs, you would have a chance of getting the synchronization
right.

You also get all sorts of benefits such as decreased resource
usage (by not having inactive file systems mounted), reduced
hangs (by not having inactive file systems from servers which
go down still mounted), in addition to the situation described
above and other benefits as well.

I do recognize that we can't get rid of the bg option, but I
would request that people using it consider different alternatives
to solving their problems.

       ps

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs