> >I am well aware of the difference and implication of choosing
> >soft versus * an NFS mount. But I was curious in addition
> >to the myrid reasons not to use soft, might soft NFS mounts also
> >show a reduction in performance? It would seem to me, that soft
> >would require more processing overhead, but sufficient to be
> No, that is not true. Soft and hard mounts only make a difference at
> the retry level; NFS operations will fail for both hard and soft mounts;
> hard mounts will just continue to press on where soft mounts give up.
> Off the top of my head I don't think it should make a noticeable
> difference. Soft mounts eventually stop retransmitting, but by that time I
> think the exponential backoff results in the retries being pretty far
>apart, so they're not really affecting much.
Thanks for the responses, I recently discovered at the company I work
(whose name will go unmentioned) that almost all the user/design and
NFS mounts are soft. It is amazing what you can find out by unplugging
an ethernet connection and watching a program error out :) I was
looking for more ammunition to get the sys admins to change everything
over, just not my accounts.
I believe the root problem is the Solaris mount_nfs manual page reads
hard | soft
Return an error if the server does not
respond, or continue the retry request
until the server responds. The default
value is hard.
Assuming normal latter/former order hard would correspond to
"Return an error if the server does not respond" and
"continue the retry request until the server responds" to soft. I
scrathing my head over this ... say 1990 ... on a vax? :)
In the sys admin guide there is an excellent discussion of hard and
and even later on the man page it clearly says not to use soft and why
but that little blurb to any newbie reads "wow I need to change to