Re: mount_nfs -T -i --> fstab?
From: Per Hedeland (per_at_hedeland.org)
Date: 12/31/04
- Next message: David Lord: "Re: dd'ing a modified partition table to my /dev/ad0"
- Previous message: Torfinn Ingolfsen: "Re: GmailFS"
- In reply to: jpd: "Re: mount_nfs -T -i --> fstab?"
- Next in thread: Conrad J. Sabatier: "Re: mount_nfs -T -i --> fstab?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:30:02 +0000 (UTC)
In article <33jdl9F3tc6laU2@individual.net> jpd
<read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> writes:
>Begin <cr0l9g$2fq0$1@hedeland.org>
>On 2004-12-30, Per Hedeland <per@hedeland.org> wrote:
>> In article <klLAd.31234$F25.2769@okepread07> conrads@cox.net (Conrad
>> J. Sabatier) writes:
>[snip!]
>>>
>>>SRVR:/nfs/share /some/mount/point nfs rw,-Ti 0 0
>>>
>>>should do the trick.
>>
>> Are you sure? I haven't tried it recently, but ISTR that only the words
>> allowed with the -o option can be given in the fstab options field, and
>> fstab(5) seems to agree.
>
>If you can pass it to mount -o, it can go into that field. Note that
>the opions mentioned are options to mount_nfs, so mount -o-Ti will end
>up as mount_nfs -Ti, which is what you want. I must admit not having
>tried with mount_nfs, but mount_smbfs I've had the opportunity and need
>to pass options in that way, and that worked.
Ah, right you are - I wasn't aware that mount accepted fstype-specific
"dash options" after -o, or I might have realized that this should work
- but it's spelled out quite clearly in mount(8). (FWIW, I verified that
an NFS mount worked with -i in there and failed with -Ti - as expected,
since the server didn't support NFS over TCP.)
>> In this case it should be OK to use
>>
>> SRVR:/nfs/share /some/mount/point nfs rw,tcp,intr 0 0
>>
>> - but not all mount_xxx options are available in -o form. Hm,
>> mount_nfs(8) lists those as "Historic" and "deprecated" - hopefully that
>> just refers to their usage with mount_nfs, the possibility to specify
>> mount_xxx options in fstab is something that should be extended IMHO,
>> not reduced...
>
>I tend to agree, and while I haven't really tried to find out more about
>it, I am fairly curious to know why. It sounds a bit like a variant of
>the dreaded --long-options-are-teh-leet - disease. ICBW, of course.
Well, if they're doing away with '-o intr' and '-o tcp' in favour of -i
and -T, I guess it's the opposite of --long-options-are-teh-leet (I
think:-). But since it apparently doesn't limit what you can do in
fstab, I (now:-) think it's OK.
--Per Hedeland
per@hedeland.org
- Next message: David Lord: "Re: dd'ing a modified partition table to my /dev/ad0"
- Previous message: Torfinn Ingolfsen: "Re: GmailFS"
- In reply to: jpd: "Re: mount_nfs -T -i --> fstab?"
- Next in thread: Conrad J. Sabatier: "Re: mount_nfs -T -i --> fstab?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
