Harshula [harshula@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > Hi Trond, > > Thanks for the reply. Could you please elaborate on the subtleties > involved that require an application to be rewritten if forcedirectio > mount option was available? > > On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 04:12 +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 14:56 +1100, Harshula wrote: > > > > > > The "sync" option, depending on the NFS server, may impact the NFS > > > server's performance when serving many NFS clients. But still worth a > > > try. > > > > What on earth makes you think that directio would be any different? > > Like I said, sync is still worth a try. I will do O_DIRECT Vs sync mount > option runs and see what the numbers look like. A while back the numbers > for cached Vs direct small random writes showed as the number of threads > increased the cached performance fell well below direct performance. In > this case I'll be looking at large streaming writes, so completely > different scenario, but I'd like to verify the numbers first. directio and sync behavior should be same on server side, but it would be a different story on the client though. The above behavior you described is expected on the client. Thanks, Malahal. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
