xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [NFS] Long sleep with i_mutex in xfs_flush_device(), affects NFS ser

To: Stephane Doyon <sdoyon@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [NFS] Long sleep with i_mutex in xfs_flush_device(), affects NFS service
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:29:56 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609261531430.10642@madrid.max-t.internal>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191533240.25914@madrid.max-t.internal> <1159297579.5492.21.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609261531430.10642@madrid.max-t.internal>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 16:05 -0400, Stephane Doyon wrote:
> I suppose it's not technically wrong to try to flush all the pages of the 
> file, but if the server file system is full then it will be at its worse. 
> Also if you happened to be on a slower link and have a big cache to flush, 
> you're waiting around for very little gain.

That all assumes that nobody fixes the problem on the server. If
somebody notices, and actually removes an unused file, then you may be
happy that the kernel preserved the last 80% of the apache log file that
was being written out.

ENOSPC is a transient error: that is why the current behaviour exists.

Cheers,
  Trond


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>