Note there are several options that you should consider using:
...
...
@@ -162,6 +165,42 @@ Note there are several options that you should consider using:
| `vers=4.1` |NFS v4.1 should be used instead of v4.0 because there is a Linux [NFS client bug in v4.0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitaly/issues/1339) that can cause significant problems due to stale data.
| `nofail` | Don't halt boot process waiting for this mount to become available
| `lookupcache=positive` | Tells the NFS client to honor `positive` cache results but invalidates any `negative` cache results. Negative cache results cause problems with Git. Specifically, a `git push` can fail to register uniformly across all NFS clients. The negative cache causes the clients to 'remember' that the files did not exist previously.
| `hard` | Instead of `soft`. [Further details](#soft-mount-option).
### soft mount option
We recommend that you use `hard` in your mount options, unless you have a specific
reason to use `soft`.
On GitLab.com, we use `soft` because there were times when we had NFS servers
reboot and `soft` improved availability, but everyone's infrastructure is different.
If your NFS is provided by on-premise storage arrays with redundant controllers,
for example, you shouldn't need to worry about NFS server availability.
The NFS man page states:
> "soft" timeout can cause silent data corruption in certain cases
Read the [Linux man page](https://linux.die.net/man/5/nfs) to understand the difference,
and if you do use `soft`, ensure that you've taken steps to mitigate the risks.
If you experience behaviour that might have been caused by
writes to disk on the NFS server not occurring, such as commits going missing,
use the `hard` option, because (from the man page):
> use the soft option only when client responsiveness is more important than data integrity
Other vendors make similar recommendations, including
[SAP](http://wiki.scn.sap.com/wiki/x/PARnFQ) and NetApp's