Re: OT: Caching synchronous writes

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ross Walker wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>  
> wrote:
> 
>> Ross Walker wrote:
>>> NFS should always be 'sync' if performance isn't good, then your
>>> storage isn't good.
>> Why demand sync on remote storage when you typically don't have it  
>> locally?
>> Programs that need transactional integrity should know when to fsync 
>> () and for
>> anything else there's not much difference whether you crash before  
>> or after a
>> write() was issued in terms of it not completing.
> 
> Yes, but 'async' ignores those fsyncs and returns immediately.

That sounds like a bug in the nfs client code if fsync() doesn't block until all 
of the data is committed to disk.

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