[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NFS client behavior on close
På on , 02/06/2004 klokka 08:41, skreiv Simon Kirby:

> In that case, is there any reason why we would ever want to wait
> before sending data to the server, except for a minimal time to allow
> merging into wsize blocks? With no delay, avoiding the write to disk
> for temporary files can still happen on the server side (async).

NO! async is a stupidity that was introduced in order to get round the
fact that NFSv2 had no server-side equivalent of the "fsync()" command.
Async breaks O_SYNC writes, fsync(), sync(), ... Most importantly, it
removes all the normal guarantees that clients can recover safely if the
server reboots or crashes.

<RANT>I find it hard to understand how people, who would normally scream
if you told them that "fsync()" on their desktop PC was broken and
didn't actually flush data to disk, can find it quite acceptable as long
as it's "only" their central storage units that are broken in the same

In any case, the performance benefit of using "async" should be very
small these days.

> Mass file writes from a single thread should be faster if the client
> write buffering is minimized.

Not necessarily. Consider the case of a random workload in which you
touch the same page more than once. Why then flush those same pages out
to disk more than once?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.065 / U:2.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site