27 Mar
2004
27 Mar
'04
4:40 p.m.
Comments below.
--On 26 March 2004 07:46 -0500 Steve Losen scl@sasha.acc.virginia.edu wrote:
[Our mount options] rw,nosuid,bg,soft,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=11,retrans=5
I don't know whether it'll help with your particular problem (on the face of it no reason that it should, in fact) but 'soft' is not an option I'd ever recommend using. Is there some particular reason why 'hard,intr' or just 'hard' is unsuitable for your mounts? Remember, silent data corruption is not your friend, unless you're Enron.
I'd try the 'noac' option, but do anticipate the filer seeing an increase in small attribute lookups from the clients that you do that on.
[Our Linux (all)] kernel 2.4.20, based on RHL 7.3
[Filer] F825, NetApp Release 6.3.3D2
--
-Mark ... an Englishman in London ...