Sign up ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question may vary between distros but, in general, what are the advantages/disadvantages of using a hard or soft mount in the UNIX world?

Are there certain situations where one is more beneficial or are the uses fairly universal?

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

up vote 15 down vote accepted

A hard mount is generally used for block resources like a local disk or SAN. A soft mount is usually used for network file protocols like NFS or CIFS.

The advantage of a soft mount is that if your NFS server is unavailable, the kernel will time out the I/O operation after a pre-configured period of time. The disadvantage is that if your NFS driver caches data and the soft mount times out, your application may not know which writes to the NFS volumes were actually committed to disk.

share|improve this answer

hard mounts and "intr" (interruptible) is a good compromise (for kernels before 2.6.25, see comment by Ryan Horrisberger) . The application is not fooled about successful writes, yet you can kill them if something clogs up the tubes.

share|improve this answer
the intr option is deprecated and ignored in recent versions on linux from: : The intr / nointr mount option is deprecated after kernel 2.6.25. Only SIGKILL can interrupt a pending NFS operation on these kernels, and if specified, this mount option is ignored to provide backwards compatibility with older kernels. – Ryan Horrisberger Feb 20 '13 at 17:26

A hard mount using some kind of network file system (nfs or fuse) can (sometimes) block forever while trying to re-establish a broken connection. This means, every process trying to access that mount goes into disk sleep (D) until the device is available again or the system is rebooted.

Disk sleep can not be interrupted or killed. Its like the zombie of zombie processes.

In short, do not use hard mounts for network file systems, ever. You want the file system to fail (immediately, to processes using syscalls) if I/O is not possible. Otherwise, the memory that they claim may as well be leaked if the FS fails.

share|improve this answer
I agree with your general recommendation re hard mounts. However, some people who deploy VMWare on NFS recommend using hard mounts. I'm not 100% familiar with why they do that, but it's something to consider and research closely before implementing. – duffbeer703 May 18 '09 at 16:32

soft is only used by people who don't understand the princip of nfs. soft/hard depends on the usage of the filesystem. for mission critical application use always hard mounts to prevent file corruption (this is the reason why it is default for most systems). for ro filesystem it is safe to use soft and therfor preferred. by the way nfsv4 no longer support soft....

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.