Re: NFS alternative
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 12:45:22PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| * D-Man (dsh8290@rit.edu) spake thusly:
| ...
| > Ok, that makes sense. How about if probability leaves us behind
| > and a packet is lost? Does NFS provide any way to correct for
| > that or will your filesystem be hosed?
|
| Thankfully, I forget the details[0]. From experience, no, it won't
| be exactly hosed: you'll end up with a .nfs004950384672385721380937
| file that will grow and eventually fill up the partition... nothing
| an rm -rf / won't fix. And then there's negative cookies and stale
| mounts that require a reboot on most unices I've seen...
Ok. It sounds like it would still result in data loss :-(.
| you had to remind me, didn't you?
Yes. Sorry. ;-)
| [0] it's built on top of RPC, so whatever error-correction mechanism
| RPC uses should apply. Plus, NFS does its own caching and stuff...
| IIRC.
Ok, I think I have a better understanding now. I'm going to be
building a couple of diskless xterms soon so I'll get a bunch of
experience then.
Now suppose just the right packets are lost and the RPC call ends up
matching a different, existant, procedure that doesn't have the
intended effect <grin> ... sounds like it would be a good idea to
make NFS over TCP stable :-).
Can I use NFS-root-over-TCP for one of the boxes (I'll have 2, the
other I'll leave at "regular" UDP as a "control" system)?
-D
Reply to: