On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Ronald Buder wrote:

> > This is normal NFS behaviour - if a NFS server doesn't respond, the
> > processes accessing it wait in an uninterruptible state. They also do
> > not get notification of a problem by a signal.

> That's what I was afraid of...

It's a really _bad_ idea to backup NFS mounts. I explicitly exclude all of
these in my backup definitions.

If at all possible, run a client on the NFS server to backup those
filesystems directly.

> Is there no way at all to make a job, which has stalled due to
> filesystem "restrictions", time out? I wonder if other (network)
> filesystems or even storage devices might opt for a similar behaviour.

In general when you're waiting for a missing NFS server, your processes
are in uninterruptible sleep and a lot of the time they won't even
respond to SIGTERM or SIGKILL

This is one of the reasons why it's a bad idea to backup a network
filesystem instead of doing it directly on the network fileserver.

AB

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users