| To: | Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: O_SYNC behavior? |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:12:05 -0400 |
| Cc: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson@xxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20100427093250.GA15182@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20100426225627.GA7106@xxxxxxxx> <537687191.239471272324343715.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100427093250.GA15182@xxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:32:50AM +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > I don't think that answers the intented question. > > I guess the correct answer is: > It depends on the server-side configuration. > An "async" export gets the "done"-answer immediatly. > An "sync" export (only when also mounted "sync" AFAIU) waits at least > until the write command is send down the stack, maybe even until the > data actually hit the platters or silicon in the SSD-case. > > man 5 exports: > - snip - > sync: Reply to requests only after the changes have been committed to stable > storage > - snip - > > But i guess the performance will be horrible when both side are "sync". The client side (that is mount-side) sync means implying O_SYNC for all I/O - no need for that. And sync exports are the default for every sane server. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: O_SYNC behavior?, Matthias Schniedermeyer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] [PATCH] xfs: simplify buffer to transaction matching, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: O_SYNC behavior?, Matthias Schniedermeyer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: O_SYNC behavior?, Ray Van Dolson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |