Re: Fwd: Bug 800181: NFSv4 on RHEL 6.3 over six times slower than 5.8

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:12 AM, mark <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> *After* I test further, I think it's up to my manager and our users to
> decide if it's worth it to go with less secure - this is a real issue,
> since some of their jobs run days, and one or two weeks, on an HBS* or a
> good sized cluster. (We're speaking of serious scientific computing here.)

I always wondered why the default for nfs was ever sync in the first
place.  Why shouldn't it be the same as local use of the filesystem?
The few things that care should be doing fsync's at the right places
anyway.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos