RE: kill task in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE

[Kerl, John]

Please, this could turn into a flamewar:

*	Users hate the NFS hangs.
*	Applications need them for consistency.

Is there really a solution that makes everyone happy
when NFS servers are down?  If so, I haven't seen it
in my career working with NFS.  (Unless NFS v3 helps ...)
All the network admins I've known choose non-interruptible,
tolerate the complaining users when a server is down,
and just work on getting the server back on-line ASAP.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Theurer [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:39 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: kill task in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > 
> > On 8 May 2002 21:27, george anzinger wrote:
> > > > > >  Is there any way i can kill a task in
> > > > > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state ?
> > > > > No. Everytime you see hung task in this state
> > > > > you see kernel bug.
> > > > > Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Except for processes accessing NFS files while the NFS 
> server is down:
> > > > they will be stuck in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE until the 
> NFS server comes
> > > > back up again.
> > >
> > > A REALLY good argument for puting timeouts on your NSF 
> mounts!  Don't
> > > leave home without them.
> > 
> > Timeouts may be a bad idea: imagine large (LARGE) database
> > which you don't want to repair due to lost data over NFS.
> > Better let it hang in NFS i/o even for hours while you are
> > repairing your network.
> 
> I'm not sure using an NFS mount for a big important DB would 
> be prudent
> in the first place.  I dunno, maybe there are situations where it's
> unavoidable.  I just really cringe when hearing about DB volumes over
> NFS.
> 
> -Andrew
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>