linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: [Problem]NFS Server – Um?ount results in Device Busy.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 08:37:33 +0000 (GMT)
From:	AMIT SAHRAWAT <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	"Trond.Myklebust@...app.com" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Problem]NFS Server –	 Um?ount results in Device Busy.

Hi Bruce,
Sorry it was the mail composer - I did not check mark the plain text option.

We need an opinion.
We will be using around 15 NFS client mounted - with one NFS Server. We are try to make out how many NFSD should we start at the NFS Server.
It all depends upon the load - these 15 NFS clients are going to generate. But is there any default number - we should use to start with? like 1 per NFS client mount?
Please share your advise on this.

Thanks & Regards,
Amit Sahrawat

------- Original Message -------
Sender : J. Bruce Fields<bfields@...ldses.org>
Date : May 10, 2012 17:46 (GMT+05:30)
Title : Re: Re: [Problem]NFS Server – Um?ount results in Device Busy.

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:54:43AM +0000, AMIT SAHRAWAT wrote:
> 
> 
Hi Bruce,

> 

> 
Thanks for instant reply.

Could you turn off html formatting on your mail?

> 
The option you mentioned is working. 'exportfs -f'

> 
Actually it is not mentioned anywhere - even when checked for options:

> 
#> exportfs -h
exportfs: invalid option -- 'h'
usage: exportfs [-aruv] [host:/path]

Sorry, it looks like the help test could be improved!  Patches
welcomed....

It is documented in the exportfs man page.

> 
But - when tried to give - '-f' option it is working.

> 
Then on checking the code for exportfs - got to know the working of '-f' option.

> 
I think it should work. I will check with a number of scenario  - to check there is no blockage for other mount points - at the time 'exportfs -f' is being run. Please reply if it wont :)

If no clients are using the export, it should work.

--b.

Thanks & Regards,
Amit Sahrawat